Jump to content

Richmonopoly

Manchester Development

Recommended Posts

I just spent the weekend in Philadelphia and spend a lot of time in Denver.  Buildings just look like this in 2019.  There’s a Walter Parks in every city lol. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Agreed, the building is a copy/paste is every city. Our argument, is nearly EVERY building in Manchester looks like this.  The skyline of Manchester is visible from the interstate, river and downtown.  We should demand better products and not just be happy with the status quo for the sake of Density.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly, I’d much rather see a taller, thinner residential tower be built in the Central Business District.  Wonder if that will ever happen?

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Hike said:

That and a taller office building too.  I noticed that in Tyson's they're building a 25 story spec office building, will RVA ever be the benefactor of a spec office development, it could happen, someday.

https://www.virginiabusiness.com/article/25-story-tower-planned-for-tysons/

Yep! And I’m jealous for Richmond.  This is a SPECULATIVE build too!  Wish Richmond’s economy was doing that well!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A shoutout and congratulations to one of our own here in this article.  Make this Development a good one!  This is a nice update on this Manchester development.  Too bad there aren’t any big cranes there, but it makes sense being that it’s only a 5 and 6-story building. 

https://richmondbizsense.com/2019/12/11/developers-of-the-current-in-manchester-strike-management-deal/

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Hike said:

I've been asleep,  poof, a tall building, I've got to get out more. What's that taken, a month,  6 weeks, the one at the flood wall? I was in this area October and never noticed,  now 8-10 stories? It all is amazing, unbelievable really! 

It certainly has gone up fast!!  Makes me think it is cheaply built. 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you fill in from where current Manchester construction is to the casino your talking about a major area of Southside being revitalized. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/17/2019 at 9:41 PM, Hike said:

The glass front of the South falls looks decent. 

south falls.jpg

I wonder if it is possible to bump the height of this to 18 office floors (22 total) to accommodate CoStar?  We really need this kind of development in downtown but maybe a feasible update since the space is currently speculative.

Would also need to account for the equivalent of 8 more floors of parking, especially since it is not any where near the Pulse.  if they could acquire air-rights over NS yard then a garage could be built over using this lot ($500k assessment).

https://www.loopnet.com/Listing/111-Hull-St-Richmond-VA/15302368/

Capture3.JPG

Edited by Icetera
Forgot about parking
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, vaceltic said:

There's a community meeting on the casino development tomorrow night at 6pm. Go to voice your opinions yay or nay - regardless, its better to do ahead of time than trying at the last minute on the day of a council vote.

https://www.nbc12.com/2020/02/19/richmond-casino-concerns-meeting-set-thursday-night/

No casino, schools first! :P  In serious though, I may have to go check this out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Icetera said:

No casino, schools first! :P  In serious though, I may have to go check this out.

If you go, definitely report back to UP please!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/19/2020 at 2:46 PM, vaceltic said:

There's a community meeting on the casino development tomorrow night at 6pm. Go to voice your opinions yay or nay - regardless, its better to do ahead of time than trying at the last minute on the day of a council vote.

https://www.nbc12.com/2020/02/19/richmond-casino-concerns-meeting-set-thursday-night/

Back from the meeting and witnessed NIMBY turned to 11.  The meeting  was led by City Councilor Robertson and the primary speaker was Pamunkey Chief Gray.  Kim and Reva were in attendance.  This was likely the chief's first public session of this sort and he appeared to be completely on his own.  The purpose was to make a formal announcement to the area civic leaders, mainly Oak Grove, Bellemeade and Blackwell, and answer questions.  Main complaints were centered around "why would you build a casino in a neighborhood?" and "build it somewhere else!"  Most reasonable questions concerned rising property taxes, crime and traffic.  The vice president of Oak Grove (or Bellemeade?) neighborhood passed around a petition for opposition and requested residents to contact state legislators to kill the bills.  Robertson encouraged them to do so but I did not take it as showing opposition herself.

At this time, the tribe does not have a definitive plan for the site and they have a short term contract to buy the property, pending results from a referendum held Nov. 3.  Any renderings are just illustrations of their ideas for the $350 mi. development.

CURRENT TIMELINE:

Both State Senate and House bills for allowing casino licences in Bristol, Danville, Norfolk, Portsmouth, and Richmond have passed general assembly voting and now are in committee to best combine the two.  Biggest differences between the two are tax rates and that in one Richmond has preference toward Pamunkey while the other is full open bid.  These are likely to be sorted out and passed in two weeks and expect Northam's approval.

Once General Assembly has done their thing, Robertson, Gray, and Trammel will be initiating an RFP for selection of a casino developer and location.  This is not limited to the tribe or the tribe's proposed site off Commerce.

Once a bidder is determined by City Council, the full vote for allowing a casino in Richmond with the attributed bid will be up for referendum on November 3.

In the event that the Pamunkey proposal is accepted, they expect construction to commence and take 1-2 years. 

 

Next Meeting:

Reva will be holding a separate meeting in March (date not decided but suspect the 19th), with Chief Gray attending, at behest of a civic representative from District 8 concerned with the work training center (resort casino is entirely District 6 land).


Some entertaining questions (paraphrased):

"Will the daycare center be in the casino?" (clearly thinking casino floor)

"How can we trust you when you keeping changing between building a casino or building a resort?"

"What do we get with our $350 mil.?" (thinking it was paid for by the city)

"Do you have any association with the casino going up on Semmes?"  No one had any clue where that came from.

"You come into our neighborhood wanting to build this for your tribe.  Why will you not let us build our own casino?"  Robertson responded well with "you are  welcome to put a bid into the RFP."
 

 

Edited by Icetera
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Icetera said:

Some entertaining questions (paraphrased):

"Will the daycare center be in the casino?" (clearly thinking casino floor)

"How can we trust you when you keeping changing between building a casino or building a resort?"

"What do we get with our $350 mil.?" (thinking it was paid for by the city)

"Do you have any association with the casino going up on Semmes?"  No one had any clue where that came from.

"You come into our neighborhood wanting to build this for your tribe.  Why will you not let us build our own casino?"  Robertson responded well with "you are  welcome to put a bid into the RFP."

This gave me a good chuckle.

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Icetera said:

Once General Assembly has done their thing, Robertson, Gray, and Trammel will be initiating an RFP for selection of a casino developer and location.  This is not limited to the tribe or the tribe's proposed site off Commerce.

I'm confused about the City's RFP initiative. If the Pamunkey, or any other entity, hold property to build a casino on, how does the city get to dictate who the developer is and where it goes? Anyone know details of the GA casino legislation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, vaceltic said:

I'm confused about the City's RFP initiative. If the Pamunkey, or any other entity, hold property to build a casino on, how does the city get to dictate who the developer is and where it goes? Anyone know details of the GA casino legislation?

Isn't the bill in conference committee? I recall reading the primary difference in the language was specific to the bidding process. One of the versions (Senate maybe?) specified open bidding, whereas the Pamunkey were mentioned specifically in the other version. I'm not sure how that translates to the city's involvement in the RFP process though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, vaceltic said:

I'm confused about the City's RFP initiative. If the Pamunkey, or any other entity, hold property to build a casino on, how does the city get to dictate who the developer is and where it goes? Anyone know details of the GA casino legislation?

Due to the bidding requirement in the bills.  The city, specifically Richmond, has to allow bids in order to determine the one and only casino to be developed here and then if to build at all.  In Both bills we qualify in A.5 where Norfolk is A.4 due to net population loss.  Actually, each of the 5 requirements is clearly used to specify one specific city without naming it.  The RFP process is by city choice, likely via Gray and Trammel.

From HB4 https://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?201+ful+HB4S1: "The bill requires each eligible host city to hold a referendum on the question of whether to allow casino gaming in the city and to hold such referendum at the November 2020 general election."

From SB36 https://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?201+ful+SB36H1:

"

Article 2.
Eligible Host City; Certification of Preferred Casino Gaming Operator.

 58.1-4107. Eligible host city; certification of preferred casino gaming operator.

A. The conduct of casino gaming shall be limited to the following eligible host cities:

1. Any city (i) in which at least 40 percent of the assessed value of all real estate in such city is exempt from local property taxation, according to the Virginia Department of Taxation Annual Report for Fiscal Year 2018, and (ii) that experienced a population decrease of at least seven percent from 1990 to 2016, according to data provided by the U.S. Census Bureau;

2. Any city that had (i) an annual unemployment rate of at least five percent in 2018, according to data provided by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics; (ii) an annual poverty rate of at least 20 percent in 2017, according to data provided by the U.S. Census Bureau; and (iii) a population decrease of at least 20 percent from 1990 to 2016, according to data provided by the U.S. Census Bureau;

3. Any city that (i) had an annual unemployment rate of at least 3.6 percent in 2018, according to data provided by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics; (ii) had an annual poverty rate of at least 20 percent in 2017, according to data provided by the U.S. Census Bureau; (iii) experienced a population decrease of at least four percent from 1990 to 2016, according to data provided by the U.S. Census Bureau; and (iv) is located adjacent to a state that has adopted a Border Region Retail Tourism Development District Act; and

4. Any city (i) with a population greater than 200,000 according to the 2018 population estimates from the Weldon Cooper Center for Public Service of the University of Virginia; (ii) in which at least 24 percent of the assessed value of all real estate in such city is exempt from local property taxation, according to the Virginia Department of Taxation Annual Report for Fiscal Year 2018; and (iii) that experienced a population decrease of at least five percent from 1990 to 2016, according to data provided by the U.S. Census Bureau.

5. Any city (i) with a population greater than 200,000 according to the 2018 population estimates from the Weldon Cooper Center for Public Service of the University of Virginia; (ii) in which at least 24 percent of the assessed value of all real estate in such city is exempt from local property taxation, according to the Virginia Department of Taxation Annual Report for Fiscal Year 2018; and (iii) that had a poverty rate of at least 24 percent in 2017, according to data provided by the U.S. Census Bureau.

B. An eligible host city shall certify a preferred casino gaming operator and, upon request from the Department pursuant to § 58.1-4109, submit to the Department the name of such preferred casino gaming operator.

C. In selecting a preferred casino gaming operator, an eligible host city shall have considered and given substantial weight to factors such as:

1. The potential benefit and prospective revenues of the proposed casino gaming establishment.

2. The total value of the proposed casino gaming establishment.

3. The proposed capital investment and the financial health of the proposer and any proposed development partners.

4. The experience of the proposer and any development partners in the operation of a casino gaming establishment.

5. Security plans for the proposed casino gaming establishment.

6. The economic development value of the proposed casino gaming establishment and the potential for community reinvestment and redevelopment in an area in need of such.

7. Availability of city-owned assets and privately owned assets, such as real property, including where there is only one location practicably available or land under a development agreement between a potential operator and the city, incorporated in the proposal.

8. The best financial interest of the city.

9. The proposer's status as a minority-owned business as defined in § 2.2-1604 or the proposer's commitment to solicit equity investment in the proposed casino gaming establishment from one or more minority-owned and the proposer's commitment to solicit contracts with minority-owned businesses for the purchase of goods and services.

D. An eligible host city described in subdivision A 4 shall provide substantial and preferred consideration to a proposer who is a Virginia Indian tribe recognized in House Joint Resolution No. 54 (1983) and acknowledged by the United States Assistant Secretary-Indian Affairs as an Indian tribe within the meaning of federal law that has the authority to conduct gaming activities as a matter of claimed inherent authority or under the authority of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act.

E. An eligible host city described in subdivision A 5 shall provide substantial and preferred consideration to a proposer who is a Virginia Indian tribe recognized in House Joint Resolution No. 54 (1983) and acknowledged by the United States Assistant Secretary-Indian Affairs as an Indian tribe within the meaning of federal law that has the authority to conduct gaming activities as a matter of claimed inherent authority or under the authority of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. § 2701 et seq.).

F. An eligible host city shall submit its preferred operator and owner based on the criteria in this section to the Department for a pre-certification of their qualifications to conduct casino gaming in the Commonwealth. An eligible host city shall also submit any written or electronic documentation considered as part of the criteria in subsection C, including any memorandum of understanding, incentives, development agreements, land purchase agreements, or local infrastructure agreements. Such pre-certification shall include a review of their financial status and ability to operate and properly support ongoing operations in an eligible host city, as well as current casino operations in other states and territories. The Department shall also consider as part of its review the best financial interests of the Commonwealth. The Department shall conduct such review and make a determination on pre-certification within 60 days of receipt of the request by the eligible host city. An eligible host city and preferred operator and owner shall fully cooperate with all necessary requests by the Department in that regard."

6 minutes ago, I miss RVA said:

Isn't the bill in conference committee? I recall reading the primary difference in the language was specific to the bidding process. One of the versions (Senate maybe?) specified open bidding, whereas the Pamunkey were mentioned specifically in the other version. I'm not sure how that translates to the city's involvement in the RFP process though.

The difference is that the Senate Bill has preference toward selecting Indian Tribes for Richmond and Norfolk.  Both require some selection process and it looks like we are decided on RFP.

Edited by Icetera
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.