Jump to content

varunner

Scott's Addition Development

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, DalWill said:

Most of our issues could be solved doing this....

You Paid For It: Visiting Nashville to see effects of city-county merger

Oh my how nice would this be for Richmond! Of course, Nashville only had one county to deal with - with Richmond, it's two. Snowballs have a better chance of surviving the Seventh Level than the Richmond metro does of doing something like this. But if it were to ever come to pass...

For fun, let's assume ONE of the two counties agreed to merge. If only one county were to agree to join up - who do you think would do it? My best guess would be Henrico. The mindset is different from Chesterfield - plus the airport is in Henrico. And there's already more robust, established GRTC service in Henrico.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


13 minutes ago, I miss RVA said:

Oh my how nice would this be for Richmond! Of course, Nashville only had one county to deal with - with Richmond, it's two. Snowballs have a better chance of surviving the Seventh Level than the Richmond metro does of doing something like this. But if it were to ever come to pass...

For fun, let's assume ONE of the two counties agreed to merge. If only one county were to agree to join up - who do you think would do it? My best guess would be Henrico. The mindset is different from Chesterfield - plus the airport is in Henrico. And there's already more robust, established GRTC service in Henrico.

Honestly, with our 1970s annexation south, I think we only need Henrico to make the difference.  Around 600k pop with 285k jobs would secure our control of the region.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Honestly, with our 1970s annexation south, I think we only need Henrico to make the difference.  Around 600k pop with 285k jobs would secure our control of the region.

Agreed. Henrico makes the most sense and would be a really good fit in a number of areas.

OK -- another pie-in-the-sky just for fun question: let's assume Richmond and Henrico DID merge, a la Nashville. How would Chesterfield react? Particularly if the marriage proved to be working extremely well, would they want in as well? Or would they continue to balk?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having grown up in Virginia Beach throughout the 90s, I constantly heard the "regionalism, regionalism, regionalism" shouts there, but I don't really see what has changed in Hampton Roads since. Norfolk has had a mass transit system for 10 years now but no construction plans in place to expand it out to adjacent communities - attempts to expand to Virginia Beach were killed by voter referendum. Norfolk International is a land-locked airport with no room to expand and no concrete plans to replace it. Twenty years on, l still read Hampton Roads articles referencing the "brain drain" phenomenon of local millennials leaving the area for opportunities in other cities (me being a Gen X/millennial who did just that). 

The only times I can remember the cities there coming together are to try and stop or influence when the Federal Government plans to close a military base or relocate a Navy ship / air squadron to some other place.

At least BRT has a Henrico County stop, the cost to operate the Convention Center is (somewhat) shared by the municipalities, and our airport is expanding. Richmond's highway system is fairly good (although i dont understand the 295 - 95 - 288 disconnect near Short Pump). 

If Richmond and Henrico did merge, I don't think most of Chesterfield residents or leaders would care, initially.  Henrico and Chesterfield are becoming mature communities, where redevelopment is going to be required. In this regard, Henrico is far ahead of Chesterfield County in planning and implementation and connection to transit alternatives. In some ways though, the redevelopment / repair budgeting challenges of the counties will be far worse than Richmond, because of the suburban sprawl and gross inefficiencies in maintaining the infrastructure of sprawl.

Chesterfield is contemplating a $600M bond referendum (the referendum is a mistake) for school, roads, libraries, and fire station construction and repair projects. This bond package would only scratch the surface of county infrastructure needs. Long down the road, when repair needs are far greater, I could see Chesterfield coming to the table with Henrico and Richmond  to pool resources in managing some services.

Edited by vaceltic
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, I miss RVA said:

Agreed. Henrico makes the most sense and would be a really good fit in a number of areas.

OK -- another pie-in-the-sky just for fun question: let's assume Richmond and Henrico DID merge, a la Nashville. How would Chesterfield react? Particularly if the marriage proved to be working extremely well, would they want in as well? Or would they continue to balk?

Since the state would still be managing their infrastructure, they may continue as is.  Office jobs would likely centralize further in the new Richmond-Henrico (Chesterfield had a net loss of jobs in 2018) while manufacturing would continue in Eastern Chesterfield.  The necessary commutes to the core may push Chesterfield to allow transit expansion after Richmond-Henrico builds out to the county border while avoiding further auto infrastructure expansion from the South.

The consolidation of city and county offices would not only be amazing for efficiency but likely lead to several substantial new government buildings in the civic center as seen in other city county seats.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, vaceltic said:

Richmond's highway system is fairly good (although i dont understand the 295 - 95 - 288 disconnect near Short Pump). 

 

The original I-295 route was planned as a 2/3 semi-circle from Falling Creek to Short Pump as part of the 1956 interstate highway system proposal.  When the Federal Interstate Highway Act of 1968 was passed, expanding the interstate highway system by 1,500 miles nationally, the Commonwealth Transportation Board requested that five Virginia highway projects be included for federal funding, including extending I-295 from Short Pump to Falling Creek west and south of Richmond to complete a full beltway. The USDOT approved three projects: I-195 in Richmond, I-664 and the Berkley Bridge portion of I-264 in Hampton Roads. Additional funding for an extended I-295 was not approved. Thus, the state had to step in to plan and fund the project.

As a result, 288 was developed significantly later than was I-295, and the southernmost segment was developed first. Due to differences in local laws regarding control of land for right of ways, Henrico was able to preserve the planned corridor extending south from I-295/I-64 in Short Pump. Chesterfield, however, was not able to control the right of way of the original planned route. A significant amount of residential growth and development had occurred along and within the originally proposed path during the years that followed the highway's planning. That said, the original route of the northern stretch had to be scuttled. As can be expected, Richmond, Henrico and Chesterfield fought over the adjusted path (Richmond and Henrico wanted 288 to link up cleanly and directly with I-295 at Short Pump). Ultimately the western route was selected and built.

Of course, then came the "brilliant" idea to extend I-295 south past the Tri-Cities (instead of curving west to link up with 288 at Falling Creek) - so on a map Richmond's "beltway" looks like a convoluted "9" that was designed by a drunkard.

Yet again ... regional cooperation at its best. (rolling eyes)

Edited by I miss RVA
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ I mean the 295 thing to Tri Cities I suppose was a way to include the tri cities in on the region, thus 'regionalism' in it's own convoluted way. 295 and 288 could never be connected bc there was already development where 295 could otherwise connect directly to 288.

 

What I don't get about 295 is why there's a flyover to get on from 64 east since if you look at Google Maps you can see they intended to do a clover leaf and cleared the trees for the exit and built a flyover instead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, RVA-Is-The-Best said:

^ I mean the 295 thing to Tri Cities I suppose was a way to include the tri cities in on the region, thus 'regionalism' in it's own convoluted way. 295 and 288 could never be connected bc there was already development where 295 could otherwise connect directly to 288.

 

What I don't get about 295 is why there's a flyover to get on from 64 east since if you look at Google Maps you can see they intended to do a clover leaf and cleared the trees for the exit and built a flyover instead.

The flyover was added about 10 years ago.  They removed the second bridge and old ramp from the original cloverleaf (preceded Rt-288 / I-64 connection) in the process.

What I have never understood is why they did not snake 288 East at the James and just proceed up the free path now filled in by John Rolfe Pkwy.  They had no problem doing an abrupt turn on the new section North of Rt-76.  The redirection at or after the James would have been more subtle.

Edited by Icetera
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, RVA-Is-The-Best said:

What I don't get about 295 is why there's a flyover to get on from 64 east since if you look at Google Maps you can see they intended to do a clover leaf and cleared the trees for the exit and built a flyover instead.

What you are seeing on the satellite image actually existed. They closed off that loop of the interchange a few years back when they built the flyover. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought a true beltway was never possible due to some federally protected wetlands. Could’ve sworn I read that on the old Roads to the Future website, but it’s been awhile.

As someone who grew up in Midlothian, I certainly recall the make 288 go West signs back in the day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking of infrastructure, log into The Vdot website and click “ projects and studies”   Proceed to the Richmond icon, and click the 95/64 overlap link. Pretty cool plans for the Richmond corridor.  Lots of work to be done.  Lastly , I believe the John  Rolfe parkway was originally intended to be the western 295 loop . As noted by the previous post pertaining to Henrico holding onto the land for the future expansion. 

Share this post


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

The flyover was added about 10 years ago.  They removed the second bridge and old ramp from the original cloverleaf (preceded Rt-288 / I-64 connection) in the process.

What I have never understood is why they did not snake 288 East at the James and just proceed up the free path now filled in by John Rolfe Pkwy.  They had no problem doing an abrupt turn on the new section North of Rt-76.  The redirection at or after the James would have been more subtle.

Richmond and Henrico wanted the eastern route that would have followed the path taken now by the John Rolfe Parkway. The problem was that so much development had occurred in Chesterfield that it would have been difficult (likely costly) to turn 288 back inward to cross the river and line up with where the Rolfe goes now. Even if the beltway would not have cut through subdivisions, my guess is that it would have come close enough that the NIMBYs were out in force in Chesterfield so their quiet suburban existence wouldn't be disturbed by a major highway. From the land standpoint, it was likely easier and cheaper to just keep the path west, where there was no dense development at the time.

It's crazy how the "makeup" for the lack of a 288-295 connection south of the city ended up being the 895 extension of Chippenham Parkway to I-295 near the airport. Given how Chippenham is a standard freeway from the Willey Bridge to the 295 exit, it gives Richmond an "inner loop" so to speak - again of a half beltway. Still this was the best idea of the bunch because it was badly needed. Until I moved to the Midwest 20 years ago, I worked just a mile or two north of the 895/95/Chippenham exchange. It was pretty cool to drive through that area and see the new highway as it was being built.

Lots of half beltways built around the metro.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, I miss RVA said:

Richmond and Henrico wanted the eastern route that would have followed the path taken now by the John Rolfe Parkway. The problem was that so much development had occurred in Chesterfield that it would have been difficult (likely costly) to turn 288 back inward to cross the river and line up with where the Rolfe goes now. Even if the beltway would not have cut through subdivisions, my guess is that it would have come close enough that the NIMBYs were out in force in Chesterfield so their quiet suburban existence wouldn't be disturbed by a major highway. From the land standpoint, it was likely easier and cheaper to just keep the path west, where there was no dense development at the time.

It's crazy how the "makeup" for the lack of a 288-295 connection south of the city ended up being the 895 extension of Chippenham Parkway to I-295 near the airport. Given how Chippenham is a standard freeway from the Willey Bridge to the 295 exit, it gives Richmond an "inner loop" so to speak - again of a half beltway. Still this was the best idea of the bunch because it was badly needed. Until I moved to the Midwest 20 years ago, I worked just a mile or two north of the 895/95/Chippenham exchange. It was pretty cool to drive through that area and see the new highway as it was being built.

Lots of half beltways built around the metro.

Wow, driving through the Pochahontas bridge construction does not feel like nearly 20 years ago...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Beautiful! What an amazing transformation of that district. As these projects rise and come on line over the next couple of years, I'd love to see some short-film footage from a drone cruising through Scotts Addition to give us a nice overview of the new developments. I'm so glad to see the emphasis on true urban development with plenty of density, no wasted space and emphasis in many cases on verticality. This part of town is really rocking!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The suburbanites are already moaning about how the parking needs to be twice the size.  Because nothing builds a memorable city like massive parking garages and parking lots. *sarcasm*

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There should be a rule in this city if you build parking garages, ground level retail/office is MANDATORY.  

Ballet_Valet_Parking_Garage_and_Retail_S

Parking-Garage-Rendering.jpg

FREE_121109987_AR_-1_0.jpg 

2 hours ago, rjp212 said:

The suburbanites are already moaning about how the parking needs to be twice the size.  Because nothing builds a memorable city like massive parking garages and parking lots. *sarcasm*

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, DowntownCoruscant said:

That’s Chia Parking Garage, the parking garage that grows!

"Floral" sir.  Floral.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At least the City's landscapers will not have to worry about maintaining the chia garage.

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a mod for Farming Simulator 19 that is basically a chia structure. It's a storage/maintenance building for farm equipment with one side sloped. The entire slope and roof are covered with grass, trees, bushes, etc. It's not farmable though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/8/2019 at 7:12 AM, rjp212 said:

This project is dead and in its place will rise a 2 story medical building. Womp womp. 

https://richmondbizsense.com/2019/10/08/new-medical-office-building-planned-near-scotts-addition/

 

 

7E25D03F-E947-40D9-A110-39A6B51133D9.jpeg

Construction fencing is now up for this project.

Also, we officially have gone vertical with the project in front of UMFS with rebar in place for the first columns.

 

 

 

  • Like 3
  • 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.