New Richmond Arena

[vaceltic]

Not all costs have been accounted for with respect to Police, Fire, and Planning. A $2M annual cost for fire services should not be multiplied out 30 years equalling $60M. These costs increase with inflation. Millions undercounted. I guarantee $2M today will not get you the same $2M of goods and services in 2045.

Social Services relocation and Richmond Public School costs were completely omitted from their analysis, despite their report including a slide guesstimating $7K enrollment cost per student annually and estimate 300 students in a separate slide. The cost benefit summary just puts an asterisk in the public school cost row, essentially saying it’s zero cost over 30 years. Ironic, since one of the central arguments to do this is to help the schools but don’t deduct these costs against inflated revenue numbers .

Its all there in the first file posted to the City’s development webpage. 

Edited August 12, 2019 by vaceltic

[wrldcoupe4]

Thanks. From a real estate programming perspective, my biggest concern is the amount of retail proposed. The office, multi family, and hospitality programming all makes sense, but I have a hard time seeing over 200k sf of retail space in that location being successful.  Even a grocery or urban target type anchor would tap out under 50k sf, so that’s a lot of restaurant and small shop space. 

[eandslee]

15 hours ago, vaceltic said:

Not all costs have been accounted for with respect to Police, Fire, and Planning. A $2M annual cost for fire services should not be multiplied out 30 years equalling $60M. These costs increase with inflation. Millions undercounted. I guarantee $2M today will not get you the same $2M of goods and services in 2045.

Social Services relocation and Richmond Public School costs were completely omitted from their analysis, despite their report including a slide guesstimating $7K enrollment cost per student annually and estimate 300 students in a separate slide. The cost benefit summary just puts an asterisk in the public school cost row, essentially saying it’s zero cost over 30 years. Ironic, since one of the central arguments to do this is to help the schools but don’t deduct these costs against inflated revenue numbers .

Its all there in the first file posted to the City’s development webpage. 

I’d just go to one of the public meetings and ask a NH rep about your concerns here, but these do not seem to be deal breakers IMO.   Perhaps there is a logical explanation.  

[wrldcoupe4]

Voting for a referendum is an easy way for council to punt on doing its job and provide them with cover for future political aspirations. Keep in mind, this is the same council that pays for studies to study other studies on a topic, so they are often fearful of making decisions. If it does not go to referendum and council votes on the project, they need 7 of 9 votes to move forward. Trammell is clearly a no, I've heard at least 1 other is currently a "no" at this point. 

Edited August 13, 2019 by wrldcoupe4

[DalWill]

52 minutes ago, wrldcoupe4 said:

Voting for a referendum is an easy way for council to punt on doing its job and provide them with cover for future political aspirations. Keep in mind, this is the same council that pays for studies to study other studies on a topic, so they are often fearful of making decisions. If it does not go to referendum and council votes on the project, they need 7 of 9 votes to move forward. Trammell is clearly a no, I've heard at least 1 other is currently a "no" at this point. 

This is what I meant by the ball being the council's court. City Council believes the  Navy Hill Master Plan might not be in the best interest for Richmond's citizens, but neither are they if they keep doing this habit of recurring studies with no action. What would be a better alternative to what's presented? One thing is for sure , accountability will be held from the administration to the developers for this project (whether this gets passed or not).

[DalWill]

1 hour ago, Hike said:

Perhaps this is just  Reva Trammell's position and other's don't feel this way.  We'll see how other council members feel once a vote is taken on whether or not this goes to a referendum.  If it's just Reva , maybe 1 or 2 others, this may go away.  Again, if it does go to a referendum, the wording & description of the proposal will be key.  The description alone can sell or collapse  this from moving forward.   Also, the writing description on a referendum will tell us the temperature of how they feel about the idea, are they trying to sell it or trying to kill it.  I know this is the city and a tax increment on city land, my frustration is that the surrounding counties will have no voice, no vote.  Portions of the money, that will ultimately support this, will come from all the surrounding areas, not just the city.  Event attendance,  people move there from the counties, buy food, park, perhaps become employed there,  but with no voice on whether it's something the counties want.  With no skin in the game, I get it, just seems to be a  bigger decision than  the city,  counties should throw some $ in the hat, but I know where that will go.    

My sentiments exactly. I always believed that a stronger city-core benefits the city and region itself. The counties should pitch in. 

3 minutes ago, Hike said:

from the RTD just now - Paul Williams gets it.  "Richmond City Council can't punt downtown redevelopment plan to voters"  Hopefully you can read the linked article.

https://www.richmond.com/news/plus/williams-richmond-city-council-can-t-punt-downtown-redevelopment-plan/article_5ba822ab-7e04-58c0-ae8e-23ee09145487.html

I believe it's only a subscribers' article.

[DalWill]

Another question, did any of the council members attended the meetings and workshops when NH Corp were drafting and revising the proposals? Were they supposed to wait till everything is completed so it can be presented and formed a decision?

[Shakman]

Did anyone mention on this forum that the Navy Hill development will/ may include two towers south of Broad?

https://richmondbizsense.com/2019/08/06/1-5b-north-broad-plan-revealed-now-two-new-towers-south-broad-st/

Edited August 13, 2019 by Shakman

[RiverYuppy]

According to the General Registrar, the petition to make all TIF have 51% of funds go to schools didn't have enough valid signatures to make it onto the ballot. From RTD

[Ward Wood]

According to RTD “Richmond City Council rejects advisory referendum on public financing of downtown arena”. I don’t feel comfortable pasting the article, but imo this is great news and forces city council to do their job! Now is it true we need 7 yays out of 9 for it to pass!? Maybe that referendum wasn’t a bad idea after all.....

[wrldcoupe4]

The referendum was an advisory one, meaning council would still vote on it afterwards. Having said that, I think it would be highly unlikely for council to go against the outcome of a referendum. 7 of 9 are required for it to pass. 

[RiverYuppy]

I support the idea of a referendum in theory.  I think one of the primary issues I have is that there is so much misinformation regarding the project.  Half the people I have spoken to (offline, in real life) think the city is financing $1.5 billion of development and giving it to the developers and taking that money straight out of the school budget. 

 

I would be much more in support of the referendum if I thought it could adequately explain the details and have people make informed decisions. 

[wrldcoupe4]

The problem with a referendum on this topic is that the public is generally misinformed and uninformed. Also, the wording of the question itself can significantly skew opinion one way or the other.  City Council needs to do its job and carefully scrutinize to determine if the cost / benefit is acceptable.  We have agreed on a representative government structure for a reason. 

[DalWill]

12 minutes ago, Hike said:

Did anyone read the article in the RTD, opinion piece by Paul Williams, he's the same one who thought not to do a referendum, he's now saying the river is the best plan for this. 

 

https://www.richmond.com/news/plus/williams-the-james-river-is-downtown-s-best-plan/article_cdd8ced5-e92d-5e5f-b98e-99afb2c54ef8.html

You see, I'm the one who thinks all opinions should be looked at or taken into consideration. But this, yeah......no.

[CitiWalker]

One of the biggest problems that has always held Richmond back is....doing a study of a study that was studied by another study. Sometimes you can give the public information overload and fog up the picture.  At some point you have got to be able to make a concrete decision.  In many instances indecisiveness cost more in the end because of escalating construction cost.  I am glad there wasn't a referendum. In any business plan whether on a micro or macro level there is no guarantee.  One thing is certain.  If you don't take a chance at getting something you end up with nothing... and nothing is what has happened to Richmond too many times in the past because of knuckle dragging. 

Edited August 16, 2019 by CitiWalker

[vaceltic]

5 hours ago, CitiWalker said:

One of the biggest problems that has always held Richmond back is....doing a study of a study that was studied by another study. Sometimes you can give the public information overload and fog up the picture.  At some point you have got to be able to make a concrete decision.  In many instances indecisiveness cost more in the end because of escalating construction cost.  I am glad there wasn't a referendum. In any business plan whether on a micro or macro level there is no guarantee.  One thing is certain.  If you don't take a chance at getting something you end up with nothing... and nothing is what has happened to Richmond too many times in the past because of knuckle dragging. 

Can you please cite some examples of this Citi?

[vaceltic]

3 hours ago, Hike said:

yeah, the river, great idea, not. 

Agree, the river has potential, but not for something with this much impact, it could easily go from being a pastoral scenic beautiful river to overcrowded and invisible. I can't imagine this scale anywhere down there.  I like the idea of the river remaining a park like setting, could see a large scale-ish nature center, informational center about the river and  the eco-system, welcome center, visitor center as an attraction, but complimentary to the landscape, smaller hotels, shops, residential, additional pathways connecting a bridge park (?) on an on.  

With the name “hike” I figure you would be more appreciative of the river. It was the #1 attraction for Richmond in 2015, with four times more visitors than an arena, at its highest attendance, would generate. 

Completion of the master plan EXPANDS the river park system, more than accommodating additional visitors. Not sure what is meant by it becoming “overcrowded and invisible”. We have brought so many tourists here BECAUSE  of the river and associated festivals and events (Folk fest, Riverrock, Friday Cheers, Xterra, and yes, even 2015 UCI). FolkFest, in one weekend, draws half the amount of visitors a $600M arena would do in a year. I’m pretty sure that is not a taxpayer funded venture at all, but based on corporate sponsorships and donations.

Oregon Hill, Manchester, Canal Walk, Rockets Landing do not exist as viable neighborhoods without the River.

No other city in the US has the features or park system the James River provides. You cannot raft Class 4 rapids in a downtown anywhere. Few places likely have a 45 mile trail from a modern downtown to a historic founding town.  The amount of amenities it provides are numerous and unique to Richmond.

I agree with woody, we should capitalize on what we have the best of instead of copying other places with a banal, corporatized fad that will fade when the newness rubs off in 10 years.

Edited August 19, 2019 by vaceltic

[vaceltic]

12 minutes ago, Hike said:

You're right, with a name like hike I do appreciate the river and all that is has done and is doing for Richmond.  What I'm articulating and not very clearly obviously, is that strictly speaking, I don't see moving the development as designed for the coliseum and all that is planned for Navy Hill and plopping that on the river, this is what I'm talking about.  By suggesting a large scale-ish nature center, informational center about the river and  the eco-system, welcome center, visitor center as an attraction, but complimentary to the landscape, smaller hotels, shops, residential, additional pathways connecting a bridge park (?) on an on, that's not being more appreciative of the river?  This is nothing but honoring the river!

Gotcha. I misunderstood it as an either or (arena vs river master plan) proposition. Yes, plopping an indoor arena next to the river doesn’t make sense at all.

But, the City cannot fund both at the same time. The administration has decided where its priorities lie.

Edited August 19, 2019 by vaceltic

[Icetera]

I cannot read the article but if it is referring to a development like NH at the river then that sounds awful.  At the same time, I do hate the lack of any urbanization of the river.  I know a lot of this has to do with the floodplain but it would be nice to get some more restaurants and urbanized outdoor space actually at the water, even if it has to be raised a bit higher than desired.  With exception of the Dominion property (which would be  a great opportunity), everything upstream from the Mayo Bridge can stay wild, but downstream would be nice to have more development at the waterline.  Rockett's Landing provides some nice views but fails to really interact with the river between the mostly locked off marina and the simple asphalt and grass Capitol Trail that should be more like a quay.  Echo Harbor had better plans to address this.  Other opportunities could be around Ancarrow's Landing and the  larger retaining pond at Shiplock Park.

[wrldcoupe4]

I think the floodplain makes all of that extremely hard. 

[eandslee]

Put everything on stilts!  Ever go to the beach?!  There are restaurants, shops, etc. all on the beach in some places.  It can be done. 

[vaceltic]

28 minutes ago, eandslee said:

Put everything on stilts!  Ever go to the beach?!  There are restaurants, shops, etc. all on the beach in some places.  It can be done. 

E, it has been done (past tense). A lot of communities in a North Carolina have laws where, if you develop land along the beach in the flood plain and a hurricane or flood takes it out, it is permanently undevelopable after that, regardless of raising its height above flood water. 

[Henrico Weather]

20 hours ago, eandslee said:

Put everything on stilts!  Ever go to the beach?!  There are restaurants, shops, etc. all on the beach in some places.  It can be done. 

Norfolk's Nauticus might be a good illustration of how to build a large building in a flood plain/tidal zone.

[Icetera]

6 hours ago, Henrico Weather said:

Norfolk's Nauticus might be a good illustration of how to build a large building in a flood plain/tidal zone.

Unfortunately a harbor, with much greater distribution, is not quite comparable to the potential 30 foot rise of the flowing James (28.62 ft on 06/23/1972).  Norfolk's record crest is just under 10 feet (9.80 ft on 08/23/1933).  The Potomac, on the other hand, has reached 18 feet (17.72 ft on 10/17/1942) yet has Georgetown Waterfront right up to the river.  I am curious as to how they designed the complex to handle a flooding event.  The Kennedy Center closely fits the example you were going for, a large event space at the river, but raised to handle flood stage.

2 hours ago, Hike said:

Had 1 thought for this area or perhaps anywhere along a river section, something like an old town Alexandria or a Carytown, where it's shops that face the river along a board walk of sorts that allow you to face the river, small boutiques, etc.  Now way that's built, it would end up looking like what's being built at the upper end of Carytown now, if it could look like a series of Williamsburg shop fronts, look historic, may be nice.  

That is definitely more along the line that I am thinking, though a lot of that would be nice along the Canal Walk, one day.

Edited August 20, 2019 by Icetera

[wrldcoupe4]

We're way off topic. Interesting discussion though.