Jump to content

New Richmond Arena


Recommended Posts


  • Replies 1.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I wanted to make sure that I waited about a full day to react to this situation since my gut reaction to the council request was going to be much uglier than after giving it some more thought.  I also

Yea - that $800 million in private equity funds (never to be paid back by the city) pouring into downtown is a total rip off.     Your not fooling us you shysters - take your $800 million and find som

I guess this could go in a few forums, but CoStar has announced they will anchor the new 400,000 sf tower adjacent to the Arena.  Plans to double the workforce to 2000.  Huge news! https://richmo

Posted Images

On 11/2/2018 at 4:39 PM, cbl1 said:

There is a huge difference between -

6th Street Marketplace - built to try to keep people and businesses from leaving the city (as they were) and try to promote the current large retailers.

Navy Hill - built because people want to come back to the city but need more housing, retail, and entertainment.

People have a hard time with those concepts.

One thing I will say that is key to all of this is crime.   Crime pushed 6th Street over the edge - people didn't feel safe.   The city is a different place then it was back then and the Richmond Police Department and City Government needs to make sure it stays that way if it wants all of these big plans to work out.   I have been very happy to tell people that I have walked around Jackson Ward and felt safe (and tremendously enjoyed that and the culture that exists in Jackson Ward) …. never would have happen in the days of the 6th Street Marketplace.  Navy Hill has the potential to bring  back Richmond to where it was mid-century - cultural center of the state.

 

 

 

 

 

This is an excellent comment.  Inner Cities everywhere where hurting bad - remember the crack-influenced violence?  Anyone know what mid-town Manhattan was like then?  Different times, folks.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Basic run down of the article. 

Under the proposal: half of surplus tax moneys brought in by the redevelopment would go towards schools. This is estimated to be 600 million over 30 years, or 20 million a year. The superintendent says this would be used to build 6 modern schools for the system. Of the remaining 50% of surplus taxes would be broken down as such: 15% to housing, 1 percent to art, 34% to the general fund. 

Council Members Hilbert and Newbille have endorsed the plan.  

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, jbjust said:

Check and mate...

Yup that's what I was thinking.    There will be bull dozers and wrecking balls lined up at the coliseum before the City Counsel meeting when they vote.

On 8/1/2018 at 12:37 PM, Brent114 said:

Your journalistic standards must be lower than mine. A high schooler could have made a more persuasive argument than Chamber RVA laid out (here’s a hint, it’s full of falsehoods and exaggerations). 

This plan is DOA anyway, we should stop wasting time on it. 

 

Brent just checking on your DOA view here is that still your position?

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, drayrichmond said:

Basic run down of the article. 

Under the proposal: half of surplus tax moneys brought in by the redevelopment would go towards schools. This is estimated to be 600 million over 30 years, or 20 million a year. The superintendent says this would be used to build 6 modern schools for the system. Of the remaining 50% of surplus taxes would be broken down as such: 15% to housing, 1 percent to art, 34% to the general fund. 

Council Members Hilbert and Newbille have endorsed the plan.  

That’s the way to get the arena built tomorrow!!!  Nothing like throwing everything in the mix so that everyone is happy!  With a development like this, heck, Council could approve this next month when the mayor submits the proposal to them!

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, meegwell said:

Yup that's what I was thinking.    There will be bull dozers and wrecking balls lined up at the coliseum before the City Counsel meeting when they vote.

 

Brent just checking on your DOA view here is that still your position?

Yep.  These numbers and ideas are just that, numbers and ideas.  None of it is real until 1) it is approved 2) it is funded 3) it is leased 4) it generates tax. 

We’re basically still at “Mexico is going to pay for it”. 

 

Edited by Brent114
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Brent114 said:

Yep.  These numbers and ideas are just that, numbers and ideas.  None of it is real until 1) it is approved 2) it is funded 3) it is leased 4) it generates tax. 

We’re basically still at “Mexico is going to pay for it”. 

 

But doesn't that apply to anything? There are no guarantees in life, but it doesn't mean we should do nothing.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The main thing that I got from the article is that Hilbert and Newbille have endorsed the plan, council president and vice-president (respectively), which is a huge step. We need 5 yes votes on the council if it's a simple majority ruling. I haven't heard anything from Robertson who's district covers the bulk of the project site. I imagine Gray, who's district covers Jackson Ward will come out against it, just the impression I've gotten from her (burn it all down if it isn't for schools!!!); but I wouldn't mind being proven wrong here. If anybody has any idea how the other council members feel on the matter please share!

The best thing we can do, if you support the project, is write your councilor (if you live in city limits) and urge them to support it. If you don't support the project, don't write anybody, Brent (lol). 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

In my opinion with the inclusion of monies to help with the schools, it would be unpopular to go against the flow...especially when the main arguement for not developing projects is having the schools being left behind financially.  I think  the vote will pass. As a wrldcoupe4 stated nothing is guranteed. However if you don't bite on this once in a life time deal for richmond it may be decades before a deal like this presents itself. The area that encompasses the project is essentially a real estate dead zone. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, wrldcoupe4 said:

But doesn't that apply to anything? There are no guarantees in life, but it doesn't mean we should do nothing.

That’s a straw man argument.  This or nothing aren’t the only options. 

Things that are softening  my opposition are 1) the housing won’t be concentrated to this area.  I think it’s silly to pump a billion dollars into an area that is hemmed in on all sides.  A spillover effect would be very difficult given the  geography and built environment.  Building housing on  the south side of Broad and on Grace expands the area that could benefit. 

2) Hyatt has expressed interest.  They were also on board for the ballpark plan and elsewhere in the city (over  the past decade or so).  They never really commit (not that they could have in the Bottom) so I’m not sure that they really believe in Richmond.  I suspect that someone at Hyatt has a personal relationship with someone here and they are used as bait.  Hope to be wrong on that though.  It’s good that a national brand expressed interest. 

Good on Stoney for trying to sell  it.  His allocating money that doesn’t exist (and  best case sceberio won’t be raised for 30 years) isn't evidence that it is a serious deal yet.  He’s trying to entice council members with imaginary money. 

Edited by Brent114
Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, drayrichmond said:

The main thing that I got from the article is that Hilbert and Newbille have endorsed the plan, council president and vice-president (respectively), which is a huge step. We need 5 yes votes on the council if it's a simple majority ruling. I haven't heard anything from Robertson who's district covers the bulk of the project site. I imagine Gray, who's district covers Jackson Ward will come out against it, just the impression I've gotten from her (burn it all down if it isn't for schools!!!); but I wouldn't mind being proven wrong here. If anybody has any idea how the other council members feel on the matter please share!

The best thing we can do, if you support the project, is write your councilor (if you live in city limits) and urge them to support it. If you don't support the project, don't write anybody, Brent (lol). 

This needs 7 votes to pass.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm worried that this is all coming into motion based on lofty financial projections at the height (and likely soon-to-be drop) of the longest economic expansion in US history. I don't like the idea of politicians locking in future city funding allocations for a 30-year time period that hamstring future city administrators and council members flexibility to be able to shift city priorities. Why has their been all this talk about Greater Richmond sharing the cost of a new ballpark but not the arena?

What might happen if the City does nothing? Organic growth of the tax-base into new unique neighborhoods. We have very recent successful examples of this with Manchester, Scott's Addition, and Church Hill. This will become a bland corporate superblock of sameness and design that siphons tax monies to pay for an arena no one's really been asking for.

Edited by vaceltic
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The city can’t rely on its neighbors to get things done.  The ballpark will likely end up being a combination of City, State/VCU, and team ownership funding.  

The city controls almost all of the property involved. That is not the case in the neighborhoods you mentioned. I don’t see a realistic scenario for that kind of organic growth here. 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, wrldcoupe4 said:

The city can’t rely on its neighbors to get things done.  The ballpark will likely end up being a combination of City, State/VCU, and team ownership funding.  

The city controls almost all of the property involved. That is not the case in the neighborhoods you mentioned. I don’t see a realistic scenario for that kind of organic growth here. 

Agreed. Now is the time for the city to make some decisive moves. I can appreciate the multi pronged approach. The county historically never does anything to help the city yet enjoys the risidual benefits of being a bedroom community. Regionalism has never been a strong suit of this area. What we have is innovative thinking and financincing. People are always going to have their opinions but we as a city have a chance to make a statement without begging the county for any finanancial support for the much needed arena. The old Richmond is dead and we are now in a new era with fresh ideas and new players.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, wrldcoupe4 said:

The city can’t rely on its neighbors to get things done.  The ballpark will likely end up being a combination of City, State/VCU, and team ownership funding.  

The city controls almost all of the property involved. That is not the case in the neighborhoods you mentioned. I don’t see a realistic scenario for that kind of organic growth here. 

Here’s a thought:  if those lots spur economic interest from real investors, the city can sell them at market rate.  Organic.  Done. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Brent114 said:

Here’s a thought:  if those lots spur economic interest from real investors, the city can sell them at market rate.  Organic.  Done. 

Don't get me wrong, I have my worries about the project and financing. But I just don't see organic growth happening in this area. The grid system is destroyed here, Leigh street is sunken, clay street is chopped up, there aren't really any buildings that you could do a historic rehab/reuse of, all things that lead to good organic growth. Meanwhile places like Scotts Addition, Manchester, even Monroe Ward are set up for organic growth having all of the afore mentioned features.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Brent114 said:

Here’s a thought:  if those lots spur economic interest from real investors, the city can sell them at market rate.  Organic.  Done. 

Are these fake investors ? The market for organic development here has clearly spoken.  If there was interest in a piece here or there, the unsolicited offers would have triggered a procurement process. That’s happened only about zero times. 

Don’t get me wrong  I hear you and agree with organic development  it’s just not meant to be here or on the diamond site.

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure,  the area is dead if you don’t consider all of the development there in the last 20 years.   VCU medical center will continue to grow.  The biotech park still has ideas for some of these lots too (I mean, I may die before the biotech park expands again but the odds of it happening are more likely than Richmond schools benefiting from a new arena).  City services will need to grow in the future.  Here’s an idea.  Keep the civic services in the civic center of the city.   This area is a bad place for the bus transfer station.  This area is horrible for housing. The proposed arena  is too large (10k empty seats at most events will sour the experience).  Social services needs to stay centrally located and the city certainly doesn’t need to spend borrowed money to rebuild an already functioning building elsewhere (and tweaking bu$ routes to make it workable). 

The street grid being broken means squat.  Manchester has the biggest cluster of streets and current development is only happening on the most f’ed of them.  It is way too costly to fix Leigh Street and “fixing” it accomplishes nothing (while creating more gridlock).  Clay street can be fixed when the city rebuilds that public works building, on the same  lot thank you.  6th Street stays closed with the new proposal. 

Have you guys and gals seen one of these entertainment districts?  They are horrible. Everywhere they exist, they are horrible..  The  city wants to steal tax revenue from the general fund to pay for this because it cannot pay for itself.  There’s no pressing need for any of it either and the bulk of the costs is just rebuilding stuff that already exists (demolish this parking deck and rebuild it across the street).   Won’t happen. 

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.