20 replies to this topic

[scm]

BASF to cease production at waterfront plant next week

Closing this plant offers a unique opportunity.  If BASF can't find someone to lease the existing plant, they will demolish it and lease the site.  This is a wonderful piece of property -- waterfront, easy freeway access to downtown Norfolk and Portsmouth, and a quick path north across the MMBT to the peninsula.  Here is link to Google Maps:  BASF plant site

So, the floor is open -- what would you like to see here?  More chemical plants?  Mixed use?  All residential?  Then, the other question -- what will happen here?

Edited by scm, 30 July 2007 - 07:54 AM.

[Glassoul]

scm, on Jul 30 2007, 09:34 AM, said:

BASF to cease production at waterfront plant next week

Closing this plant offers a unique opportunity.  If BASF can't find someone to lease the existing plant, they will demolish it and lease the site.  This is a wonderful piece of property -- waterfront, easy freeway access to downtown Norfolk and Portsmouth, and a quick path north across the MMBT to the peninsula.  Here is link to Google Maps:  BASF plant site

So, the floor is open -- what would you like to see here?  More chemical plants?  Mixed use?  All residential?  Then, the other question -- what will happen here?

Ideally, it'll remain a chemical plant. Likely, if it doesn't get leased, it'll be torn down and I suspect some sort of warehouse to eventually be developed there relating to the port. It won't be residential, that's for sure. It's location, history (read: pollution), proximity to the new MMBT make it much more appealing as an industrial space.

[carolinaboy]

How about an ethanol plant, or other alternative fuel production site?

[scm]

Glassoul, on Jul 31 2007, 01:35 AM, said:

location, history (read: pollution), proximity to the new MMBT make it much more appealing as an industrial space.

Well, what they make there is sodium polyacrylate -- the absorbent in disposable diapers.  Not really a pollutant, so I don't think clean up is an issue.

[gosscj]

I'm pretty sure you're right, scm. I grew up near there in Churchland (my first job was washing dishes at Scale o'de Whale just a few blocks away) and I made a comment about the plant one time that it looked like a great big pollution factory. I was told also that pollution at the site was negligable and the visible emissions were almost entirely steam. Glassoul has a point that it's location near the new Maersk terminal may make it a candidate for future industrial development, but it is also adjacent to several small neighborhoods and its waterfront location and accessibility to 164 would certainly make it a great spot for something more interesting.

[erdogs]

Build a 300 foot monument to the maritime history, maybe a fake lighthouse. I used to go fishing and crabbing back behind that neigborhood and sometimes rented boats, so I hope it isn't too polluted.

[scm]

I have to wonder if all of the ideas to keep this industrial are rooted in the fact that it is Portsmouth?  It is amazing to see all of the snotty, and marginally racist, comments in the VP about the ethanol plant, or almost anything else related to Portsmouth.  There is a deep rooted feeling among a pretty vocal part of the community here in HR that anything is too good for Portsmouth.  Not saying that anyone here is snotty or racist -- just that the first idea for anything in Portsmouth is industrial.  Shouldn't discount the attitudes of the marketplace.

The problem is the newcomers -- when we first moved to Austin (erdog, you will get a laugh out of this) a columnist in the AAS said "there are people moving to Austin that are too stupid to know they shouldn't live in South Austin".  If someone would take that property and build a design that would take advantage of one of the largest contigious parcels on the Elizabeth River, with those great views, I have to think there are people moving here too stupid to know they shouldn't live in Portsmouth.  Bob Williams has told me people laughed at him when he first started amassing all of the land that is now Harbourview. (also heard that all of that property now in N. Suffolk, when it was Norfolk County, could have been annexed by Portsmouth)

Wonder if you had the same parcel in VB on the Bay you would get the same kind of comments.  I wonder alot  

[cpeakesqr]

scm, on Aug 2 2007, 09:17 AM, said:

I have to wonder if all of the ideas to keep this industrial are rooted in the fact that it is Portsmouth?  It is amazing to see all of the snotty, and marginally racist, comments in the VP about the ethanol plant, or almost anything else related to Portsmouth.  There is a deep rooted feeling among a pretty vocal part of the community here in HR that anything is too good for Portsmouth.  Not saying that anyone here is snotty or racist -- just that the first idea for anything in Portsmouth is industrial.  Shouldn't discount the attitudes of the marketplace.

The problem is the newcomers -- when we first moved to Austin (erdog, you will get a laugh out of this) a columnist in the AAS said "there are people moving to Austin that are too stupid to know they shouldn't live in South Austin".  If someone would take that property and build a design that would take advantage of one of the largest contigious parcels on the Elizabeth River, with those great views, I have to think there are people moving here too stupid to know they shouldn't live in Portsmouth.  Bob Williams has told me people laughed at him when he first started amassing all of the land that is now Harbourview. (also heard that all of that property now in N. Suffolk, when it was Norfolk County, could have been annexed by Portsmouth)

Wonder if you had the same parcel in VB on the Bay you would get the same kind of comments.  I wonder alot  

HarbourView isn't snuggled up next to a giant marine terminal operating 24/7...

[scm]

cpeakesqr, on Aug 2 2007, 10:28 AM, said:

HarbourView isn't snuggled up next to a giant marine terminal operating 24/7...

NO, it was only next to a Superfund site (the former Nansemond Ordnance Depot).  It was in the middle of nowhere, with cow pasture access.  What it required, and what he has made all of his money for, is having the vision of not what it was, but what it could become.  Just like the BASF plant site.

[Glassoul]

cpeakesqr, on Aug 2 2007, 10:28 AM, said:

HarbourView isn't snuggled up next to a giant marine terminal operating 24/7...

Nor is it adjacent to a busy (and about to get busier) multi-lane bridge, that blocks 90 degrees of said view.

SCM - It's also been a chemical plant for >100 years. It wasn't always producing diaper absorbents. Oh, and the raw material used to produce that were extremely toxic and dangerous, things like concentrated ammonia, etc. The train that delivered the chemicals ran through my neighborhood in Western Branch, daily, and there had been discussions on what would happen if the train tipped over and the containers leaked... Not good.  This site makes absolute sense as an industrial site, not residential.

Edited by Glassoul, 02 August 2007 - 10:25 AM.

[cpeakesqr]

scm, on Aug 2 2007, 12:12 PM, said:

NO, it was only next to a Superfund site (the former Nansemond Ordnance Depot).  It was in the middle of nowhere, with cow pasture access.  What it required, and what he has made all of his money for, is having the vision of not what it was, but what it could become.  Just like the BASF plant site.

Every teenager who's grown up in the area has been all over that site... They're actually planning to develop right on top of where the dump site are.  Harborview is hardly in the middle of nowhere, it's a hop over 664 from WB and Churchland.

[scm]

cpeakesqr, on Aug 2 2007, 12:48 PM, said:

Harborview is hardly in the middle of nowhere, it's a hop over 664 from WB and Churchland.

OK, let me try this one more time -- when Harbourview was first being amassed, there was NO 664 (HV plan predates 1992, when 664 opened).  The "vision thing" was required -- and those that didn't have it, laughed at Bob.

[cpeakesqr]

scm, on Aug 2 2007, 01:58 PM, said:

OK, let me try this one more time -- when Harbourview was first being amassed, there was NO 664 (HV plan predates 1992, when 664 opened).  The "vision thing" was required -- and those that didn't have it, laughed at Bob.

That's still an extremely flexible view of the middle of nowhere.  I mean, if we were talking about Holland or some other "gas station town" off of rt. 58 then it would justifiably be the middle of nowhere.  Ironically, this discussion is going nowhere.

Back to the chemical plant...  I don't think it could become Harbourview #2, even with remarkable "vision".

Edited by cpeakesqr, 02 August 2007 - 12:31 PM.

[rusthebuss]

cpeakesqr, on Aug 2 2007, 02:28 PM, said:

That's still an extremely flexible view of the middle of nowhere.  I mean, if we were talking about Holland or some other "gas station town" off of rt. 58 then it would justifiably be the middle of nowhere.  Ironically, this discussion is going nowhere.

Back to the chemical plant...  I don't think it could become Harbourview #2, even with remarkable "vision".

Well it could be used for future marine terminal or storage for containers. Possible warehouse location would be a good choice.

[hoobo]

I've decided to make an appearance.  When this thread popped up, I knew where scm was going with it.  If we were talking about the PMT, then I could understand redeveloping it as a residential/commercial site.  I see where we're going with Harbouview:  next to a Superfund site, across the water from Newport News' industrial waterfront, and at the time, in the middle of nowhere.  At least this site is in the middle of somewhere.  But looking at the aerial, this site is cut off by the Western Freeway.  It has an old neighbor in the PMT, that will expand with the acquisition of the old APM terminal.  And it has a new neighbor in the new APM terminal that plans on expanding in the future.  VPA appears close to securing the funds it needs to go ahead with the Craney Island expansion.  Finally, there's the Lambert Coal Terminal directly across the water from the site in discussion.

I question locating more residences in close proximity to ships burning diesel/bunker fuel and to a terminal.  The people already living in the vicinity are enough (and I'm surprised that there's even a neighborhood next to this site).  As for commercial uses, I don't see offices housing lawyers or bankers being built there because who wants to look at a coal yard?  But offices for shipping lines or maritime related companies would fit in well such as North American HQs of CMA CGM and Zim and/or local engineering offices for Moffatt & Nichol and Transystems.  Maybe even relocation of VPA HQ.  That would be interesting putting owners, operators, shippers, and engineers all in one place.

Another compatible use that is not industrial is a marina with restaurants.  Nothing like fresh caught fish just as long as it's not from adjacent waters.

But when all is said and done, I expect another industrial user to purchase or lease the site from BASF.  Considering the neighbors, the deep waterfront access, and the highway/rail access; it has too many features that make it attractive for factory/shipping use.  Ultimately, it's up to BASF.

[urbanvb]

^ Good to see you back.

[scm]

All you guys crying crocodile tears over the proximity to the APM terminal seem to forget that some of the most exclusive neighborhoods in Norfolk (Larchmont, etc) are just as close to NIT as this is to APM, and Port Norfolk is closer to PMT.

I need to talk to Bob and see if he has one more left in his system before Judy makes him check out.  This could be a dynamite project.  BASF says if they can't get an industrial user, they will level the site.

Hoobo -- welcome back -- I look forward to the jousting  

[rusthebuss]

scm, on Aug 3 2007, 12:14 PM, said:

All you guys crying crocodile tears over the proximity to the APM terminal seem to forget that some of the most exclusive neighborhoods in Norfolk (Larchmont, etc) are just as close to NIT as this is to APM, and Port Norfolk is closer to PMT.

I need to talk to Bob and see if he has one more left in his system before Judy makes him check out.  This could be a dynamite project.  BASF says if they can't get an industrial user, they will level the site.

Hoobo -- welcome back -- I look forward to the jousting  

I say it would be perfect for the terminal use. We are running out of deep water areas!

[Glassoul]

scm, on Aug 3 2007, 12:14 PM, said:

All you guys crying crocodile tears over the proximity to the APM terminal seem to forget that some of the most exclusive neighborhoods in Norfolk (Larchmont, etc) are just as close to NIT as this is to APM, and Port Norfolk is closer to PMT.

I need to talk to Bob and see if he has one more left in his system before Judy makes him check out.  This could be a dynamite project.  BASF says if they can't get an industrial user, they will level the site.

Hoobo -- welcome back -- I look forward to the jousting  

Uh, if you knew the people you were talking to, you might not be so accusing with your passive aggressive attempts to label people.

[scm]

Glassoul, on Aug 4 2007, 06:24 PM, said:

Uh, if you knew the people you were talking to, you might not be so accusing with your passive aggressive attempts to label people.

Nice ad hominem attack.  Tawdry, but nice.

I'll stand by the statement -- the phrase "shedding crocodile tears" means an insincere display of concern.   If anyone was REALLY concerned about the proximity of this site to the new APM terminal, then they would have the same concerns about Lochaven or Larchmont, since they are just as close to NIT.

Edited by scm, 05 August 2007 - 07:14 AM.