City Center / Virginia BioTech Park

[I miss RVA]

2 hours ago, 123fakestreet said:

Chamberlayne/Belvidere/Cowardin/Jeff Davis (or whatever they are calling it now) it the obvious north south route.  From Azalea Mall to Dupont.  Only issue is it doesn't bisect downtown enough, I'm sure they'd like it go further east of Belvidere.  Could solve that by adding another east/west south of the river - 9th street starting at existing Broad St line across Manchester Bridge then hook a right at Commerce and go down Hull St, intersecting with the north/south line at Cowardin

 

 

Toward the Pike via Hull Street - I had thought about that - however, I wonder how the city would solve for having dual directional BRT lanes when it's not possible to widen Hull Street - and even if the parking lanes are used strictly as travel lanes, I could see traffic nightmares happening along Hull the entire stretch between Commerce & Cowardin. I wonder if the more logical route would be to break off at Semmes Avenue and follow that to Cowardin?

This also makes me wonder if the north-south route might simply split just north of I-95/64 - with the Belvidere/Lee Bridge/Cowardin/Pike portion heading directly south across the interstate toward VCU - and the other portion (to Manchester) would follow the route (as shown on the small area plan) into Jackson Ward to Leigh Street? If that's the case, there would a be a LOT of service to/from the Northside.

One would think that Belvidere Street HAS to be kept into the mix somehow.

2 hours ago, 123fakestreet said:

Smart move on their part, NIMBYs have made the name "Navy Hill" toxic, best to move on from it and call it something else.

This is true! After all, "semantics" is the name of the game! 

[123fakestreet]

3 hours ago, I miss RVA said:

 I wonder how the city would solve for having dual directional BRT lanes when it's not possible to widen Hull Street - and even if the parking lanes are used strictly as travel lanes, I could see traffic nightmares happening along Hull the entire stretch between Commerce & Cowardin. I wonder if the more logical route would be to break off at Semmes Avenue and follow that to Cowardin?

Semmes is kind of far north and mostly near the large corporate buildings, as opposed to  Hull is much more accessible to more people being further south and near more residential and small businesses you'd want to have access to the BRT.  Put a stop on Commerce before it turns on to Hull, and a stop on Cowardin right after Hull, then just use shared lanes for that  ~10 block stretch of Hull.  There's no exclusive lanes down by Willow Lawn as it is now.

Edited June 8, 2021 by 123fakestreet

[I miss RVA]

1 hour ago, 123fakestreet said:

Semmes is kind of far north and mostly near the large corporate buildings, as opposed to  Hull is much more accessible to more people being further south and near more residential and small businesses you'd want to have access to the BRT.  Put a stop on Commerce before it turns on to Hull, and a stop on Cowardin right after Hull, then just use shared lanes for that  ~10 block stretch of Hull.  There's no exclusive lanes down by Willow Lawn as it is now.

Oh 100% agreed - Semmes is too far north and cuts out the primary part of Manchester that one would want to serve. Okay - I can see putting a station at Commerce and Hull and one at Cowardin and Hull - it would run express through the Hull Street corridor between the two turn points. That would certainly work. And if a Cowardin/Lee Bridge/Belvidere to Chamberlayne branch were to operate concurrently with the downtown thru Manchester branch - that should make for some pretty robust north-south service from the far Northside to DuPont - and it could simultaneously serve VCU, City Center, & Manchester quite seamlessly. No idea if the powers that be would come off of the money to set the route(s) up this way, but I really do think it would work.

[Brent114]

I personally like it better down Semmes, with dedicated lanes.  It’s only a three  block (4 at most) walk to Hull and Hull is mostly boutique shops anyway, not like there are single destinations with large customer bases.   Hull is too crowded and the Mayo Bridge (even when replaced) is a terrible place to cross.  The line becomes immediately redundant as soon as it crosses the river. 
 

Semmes has large residential developments along it (and lots of land left to develop) and large offices and the Manchester Bridge is already wide enough to support two dedicated bus lanes without impacting traffic.  Then it puts you out in the center of downtown (a CBD stop is currently  lacking) on the other side where it’s a straight shot to where the city wants to build the transportation hub. 
 

BTW, after 15 years in Jackson Ward I’m moving next Tuesday to Manchester.   Looking forward to the change but feel terrible about leaving  Jackson Ward. 

Edited June 8, 2021 by Brent114

[123fakestreet]

1 hour ago, Brent114 said:

I personally like it better down Semmes, with dedicated lanes.  It’s only a three  block (4 at most) walk to Hull and Hull is mostly boutique shops anyway, not like there are single destinations with large customer bases.   Hull is too crowded and the Mayo Bridge (even when replaced) is a terrible place to cross.  The line becomes immediately redundant as soon as it crosses the river. 
 

Semmes has large residential developments along it (and lots of land left to develop) and large offices and the Manchester Bridge is already wide enough to support two dedicated bus lanes without impacting traffic.  Then it puts you out in the center of downtown (a CBD stop is currently  lacking) on the other side where it’s a straight shot to where the city wants to build the transportation hub. 

I had it going across the Manchester Bridge. You don't want a BRT going down a SFH residential street, it's not serving as many people that way plus the people who live there won't want it- the opposite effect its supposed to have, as opposed to Hull, yes currently being small boutique shops, but a BRT line would greatly boost their business and that area would grow- one of the primary purposes of a BRT line.

And yes Hull is only 3 blocks away from  Semmes, but the many people south of Hull are even farther away- as opposed to no one (the river) being north of Semmes to serve, and few people along it (corporate office space). 

Edited June 9, 2021 by 123fakestreet

[I miss RVA]

3 hours ago, Brent114 said:

I personally like it better down Semmes, with dedicated lanes.  It’s only a three  block (4 at most) walk to Hull and Hull is mostly boutique shops anyway, not like there are single destinations with large customer bases.   Hull is too crowded and the Mayo Bridge (even when replaced) is a terrible place to cross.  The line becomes immediately redundant as soon as it crosses the river. 
 

Semmes has large residential developments along it (and lots of land left to develop) and large offices and the Manchester Bridge is already wide enough to support two dedicated bus lanes without impacting traffic.  Then it puts you out in the center of downtown (a CBD stop is currently  lacking) on the other side where it’s a straight shot to where the city wants to build the transportation hub. 
 

BTW, after 15 years in Jackson Ward I’m moving next Tuesday to Manchester.   Looking forward to the change but feel terrible about leaving  Jackson Ward. 

Hey Brent - Congrats on the move to Manchester! We will, of course, expect a full report of your experiences moving to Richmond's version of Brooklyn. Oh -- and photos. Of all the new development, as it's happening. You realize you are now becoming, defacto, our reporter (and photographer) on the ground in Manchester - and will be in a prime position to help document Richmond's dramatic boom from the Manchester perspective! All the best to you in your new digs - may it be filled with goodness and happiness. 

Re the BRT line - the city small area plan has it crossing the river via the Manchester Bridge. The 14th Street Bridge is completely out of the mix.

[I miss RVA]

123fakestreet (and others) - here's a question:  Aside from the potential of putting a BRT station at Commerce and Hull and Cowardin and Hull - if the Manchester Pulse line will not stop during the 10-block stretch between Commerce and Cowardin - then (again, factoring out those two stations which would be the game-changer) - what difference would it make if the line took Semmes vs Hull Street? Even stations and Commerce and Hull and Cowardin and Hull would take a bit of schlepping to get to.

From the discussion of the distance (3 blocks) from Hull to Semmes - it almost sounds like - if "service" along Hull Street (and the immediate adjacent streets) is a consideration, then a station would have to be constructed somewhere in the middle of the stretch between Commerce & Cowardin, yes? If that's the case, does the Pulse line require three stations in that part of Manchester? Mind you - population growth trends - particularly the location of highrise residential buildings might very well necessitate that. I'm just throwing discussion points on the table as food for thought. 

Another question: Especially if - at some point - the Pulse lines could be actually converted to light rail (a dream we all on here have) - would it not be better to have some kind of infrastructure in place (that could be built-in along Semmes) to facilitate such a conversion?

That it's left wide-open and undefined on the small area plan certainly gives us some fertile ground to debate and discuss!

[Wahoo 07]

One aspect of the City Center plan that I really like is the inclusion of a high school.  This tells me that there will be serious family population growth in the surrounding areas.  A truly urban public high school will be a first for RVA.  Having lots of families with high school aged kids in urban core is another step towards Richmond becoming a national city instead of a regional one.  Heady times indeed!

[123fakestreet]

14 hours ago, I miss RVA said:

123fakestreet (and others) - here's a question:  Aside from the potential of putting a BRT station at Commerce and Hull and Cowardin and Hull - if the Manchester Pulse line will not stop during the 10-block stretch between Commerce and Cowardin - then (again, factoring out those two stations which would be the game-changer) - what difference would it make if the line took Semmes vs Hull Street? Even stations and Commerce and Hull and Cowardin and Hull would take a bit of schlepping to get to.

From the discussion of the distance (3 blocks) from Hull to Semmes - it almost sounds like - if "service" along Hull Street (and the immediate adjacent streets) is a consideration, then a station would have to be constructed somewhere in the middle of the stretch between Commerce & Cowardin, yes? If that's the case, does the Pulse line require three stations in that part of Manchester? Mind you - population growth trends - particularly the location of highrise residential buildings might very well necessitate that. I'm just throwing discussion points on the table as food for thought. 

If the route went Commerce -> Semmes -> Hull st you're talking 3 turns instead of 1, that's more time to drive the route, more lights to install, etc. Part of the BRT is simplicity, it should be as straight and clear a route as possible, no turns and zigs zags unless necessary. 

A stop at Commerce before Hull and Cowardin after Hull not only helps the route fit through that stretch of Hull, it just makes sense in terms of overall location.  If you're in the middle of Hull the most you're walking is 4 blocks to a station on either end, there's no need for a central Hull St station.   Stations should be 6-10 blocks apart so the most anyone has to walk is 3-5 blocks.  Putting a station right after the bridge, then in central Manchester, then at Cowardin is too many. It's a waste of money to build and maintain, and it also it slows the route down by making too many stops.

 The station at Commerce and Hull would also be perfectly central to the North eastern section of Manchester.   And that's why Hull St would be critical to the route rather than Semmes - Hull basically perfectly bisects Manchester, ~5 blocks from the northern most part, 5 blocks from the southern most, as opposed to putting the route all the way north on Semmes and people in south Manchester are 10 blocks away.

 

 

 

Edited June 9, 2021 by 123fakestreet

[123fakestreet]

See if this works, not sure it has public access.

https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/edit?mid=15FE9aRK0aSbZC8B6VZTA-Fwh2LYyAmvI&ll=37.523374609589006%2C-77.45390275000001&z=12

This is what I would envision the full system to look like.  Not a fantasy of what we'd like to see, but what it would realistically end up being.  I originally said north south would go from Azalea to Dupont, but after looking at the map I just couldn't see them justifying going that far. Hell we'd all love to see light rail connect all the way to Petersburg, but that's not going to happen. Only reason it goes as far south as it does in this projection is because the casino is going in there and I imagine they would love to deliver people to the doorstep.  Similarly when I really looked at it, it makes much more sense for an east/west line to break off onto Midlothian tnpk than continue all the way down Hull.

Edited June 9, 2021 by 123fakestreet

[I miss RVA]

6 hours ago, 123fakestreet said:

If the route went Commerce -> Semmes -> Hull st you're talking 3 turns instead of 1, that's more time to drive the route, more lights to install, etc. Part of the BRT is simplicity, it should be as straight and clear a route as possible, no turns and zigs zags unless necessary. 

A stop at Commerce before Hull and Cowardin after Hull not only helps the route fit through that stretch of Hull, it just makes sense in terms of overall location.  If you're in the middle of Hull the most you're walking is 4 blocks to a station on either end, there's no need for a central Hull St station.   Stations should be 6-10 blocks apart so the most anyone has to walk is 3-5 blocks.  Putting a station right after the bridge, then in central Manchester, then at Cowardin is too many. It's a waste of money to build and maintain, and it also it slows the route down by making too many stops.

 The station at Commerce and Hull would also be perfectly central to the North eastern section of Manchester.   And that's why Hull St would be critical to the route rather than Semmes - Hull basically perfectly bisects Manchester, ~5 blocks from the northern most part, 5 blocks from the southern most, as opposed to putting the route all the way north on Semmes and people in south Manchester are 10 blocks away.

 

 

 

Okay - after looking at your projected route map, that makes sense - because there was no third turn in either scenario of taking Semmes or Hull if the line was going to turn right off of Commerce - then left onto Cowardin heading toward the Pike. So you actually have it broken into two separate lines altogether - which makes sense (whereas the city's small area plan seems to try to put it together as one single line). Not sure how the city's final design of this will look like - but your concept is certainly doable and would work. When there comes time for citizen input, I hope you will make that design available to the powers that be. It deserves a look.

[Richmonopoly]

9 hours ago, Wahoo 07 said:

One aspect of the City Center plan that I really like is the inclusion of a high school.  This tells me that there will be serious family population growth in the surrounding areas.  A truly urban public high school will be a first for RVA.  Having lots of families with high school aged kids in urban core is another step towards Richmond becoming a national city instead of a regional one.  Heady times indeed!

I wonder if that would act a regional high school or a specialty center?  This also excites me, though I’m pitied that the arena will be out in the burbs. 

[I miss RVA]

Once again, RVA Urban Planet gets the scoop before even Richmond BizSense. Here's the RBS report (published today) on the small area plan.

https://richmondbizsense.com/2021/06/09/citys-new-city-center-plan-envisions-downtown-without-the-coliseum/

[Hike]

On 6/9/2021 at 9:18 PM, I miss RVA said:

Once again, RVA Urban Planet gets the scoop before even Richmond BizSense. Here's the RBS report (published today) on the small area plan.

https://richmondbizsense.com/2021/06/09/citys-new-city-center-plan-envisions-downtown-without-the-coliseum/

Q1.  Should the topic header be changed from Navy Hill/Court End/VA Bio Tech Park to City Center, as it's being called now, would that be correct?

Q2. Saw the link below in Bizsense, what are your thoughts on keeping part of the coliseum, specifically the lowered platforms?  The way he's envisioning the idea is to use part of the lower platforms as an amphitheater and keep it as part of the greenspace, part of the exterior park that's being considered here.  

I could see using the concrete platforms as seating with grass between, not every layer, but demo every other, and create green space between the seating, keep part of the exterior as a ruin, it would be unique and still have a purpose.  There's a fine line for the ruin part - from looking appropriate vs looking like a building torn down, that would have to be navigated, perhaps just the seating, but this is interesting. 

https://richmondbizsense.com/2021/06/25/guest-opinion-turn-the-richmond-coliseum-into-richmond-colosseum/

 

 

Edited June 25, 2021 by Hike

[whw53]

13 minutes ago, Hike said:

Q1.  Should the topic header be changed from Navy Hill/Court End/VA Bio Tech Park to City Center, as it's being called now, would that be correct?

 

 

 

Fine by me - and we can remove City Center from the Monroe Ward \City Center thread.

[Hike]

2 minutes ago, whw53 said:

Fine by me - and we can remove City Center from the Monroe Ward \City Center thread.

oh, shoot, that's right, there's that thread too.  I should have put this there probably or merge the 2 if that's even possible.

Edited June 25, 2021 by Hike

[whw53]

I like having a separate thread for Monroe Ward but City Center is fitting for everything west of the wards along Broad. The reason City Center was there in the Monroe Ward name is because that place name used to be centered south of Broad and the two districts sort of merged. But now it seems the city is trying to refocus that district along Broad St so it works to cut it from one and rename this one.

[Hike]

1 hour ago, whw53 said:

I like having a separate thread for Monroe Ward but City Center is fitting for everything west of the wards along Broad. The reason City Center was there in the Monroe Ward name is because that place name used to be centered south of Broad and the two districts sort of merged. But now it seems the city is trying to refocus that district along Broad St so it works to cut it from one and rename this one.

I don't see where I can change it, you're the author of this thread, can you update it?  

[eandslee]

3 minutes ago, Hike said:

I don't see where I can change it, you're the author of this thread, can you update it?  

I think you have to get @Icetera to do it. 

[Hike]

2 minutes ago, eandslee said:

I think you have to get @Icetera to do it. 

Rodger that.

[I miss RVA]

2 hours ago, Hike said:

Q2. Saw the link below in Bizsense, what are your thoughts on keeping part of the coliseum, specifically the lowered platforms?  The way he's envisioning the idea is to use part of the lower platforms as an amphitheater and keep it as part of the greenspace, part of the exterior park that's being considered here.  

I could see using the concrete platforms as seating with grass between, not every layer, but demo every other, and create green space between the seating, keep part of the exterior as a ruin, it would be unique and still have a purpose.  There's a fine line for the ruin part - from looking appropriate vs looking like a building torn down, that would have to be navigated, perhaps just the seating, but this is interesting. 

https://richmondbizsense.com/2021/06/25/guest-opinion-turn-the-richmond-coliseum-into-richmond-colosseum/

 

 

I'm not at all a fan of the idea forwarded by the guest writer in Richmond BizSense today. There's SO much focus on "gathering space" - "green space" - yada yada - for Richmond. How about let's concentrate first on building sufficient density before we worry about adding MORE green space/gathering space to the city? The City Center Small Area Plan does a very good job of pushing density in this part of downtown. I'd far rather see the land sold to private developers & taken off the city's books altogether - and let developers come in, bulldoze everything and start building highrises - let's get the population density of downtown up to at least 30,000 as has been suggested on these boards previously before we worry about monuments to dead sports venues, parks, event space, etc. To me, putting such an emphasis on more green space before we even have enough density to make downtown viable 24-hours-a-days is quintessential putting the cart way before the horse. Downtown is awash in wide open spaces (admittedly paved surface parking lots - but still...) We can integrate green space or some kind of gathering space into future developments - but honestly, that's dessert. Let's focus on the meat and potatoes first - and that's density and high-intensity development.

[Hike]

14 minutes ago, I miss RVA said:

I'm not at all a fan of the idea forwarded by the guest writer in Richmond BizSense today. There's SO much focus on "gathering space" - "green space" - yada yada - for Richmond. How about let's concentrate first on building sufficient density before we worry about adding MORE green space/gathering space to the city? The City Center Small Area Plan does a very good job of pushing density in this part of downtown. I'd far rather see the land sold to private developers & taken off the city's books altogether - and let developers come in, bulldoze everything and start building highrises - let's get the population density of downtown up to at least 30,000 as has been suggested on these boards previously before we worry about monuments to dead sports venues, parks, event space, etc. To me, putting such an emphasis on more green space before we even have enough density to make downtown viable 24-hours-a-days is quintessential putting the cart way before the horse. Downtown is awash in wide open spaces (admittedly paved surface parking lots - but still...) We can integrate green space or some kind of gathering space into future developments - but honestly, that's dessert. Let's focus on the meat and potatoes first - and that's density and high-intensity development.

I think this makes sense what you say and is likely more realistic.  I get caught up in concepts and the imagination of how to create them,  envisioning how the design may work, etc. with less thought on planning the bigger picture and finding ways to help Richmond with more tax $.  There is the unfortunate reality that man created open spaces in RVA tend to just be empty spaces, other than along the river.  This area would probably be better off  with little slivers of green spaces that connect the urban building mass.  This area is devoid of any connection to green space and asking people to move here, come enjoy the blacktop streets and sidewalks won't be enough probably, but small areas with grass, trees, places to walk the dog, sit & read will go along way when linking the buildings and still open up enough land for the business side of design. 

[I miss RVA]

3 hours ago, Hike said:

I think this makes sense what you say and is likely more realistic.  I get caught up in concepts and the imagination of how to create them,  envisioning how the design may work, etc. with less thought on planning the bigger picture and finding ways to help Richmond with more tax $.  There is the unfortunate reality that man created open spaces in RVA tend to just be empty spaces, other than along the river.  This area would probably be better off  with little slivers of green spaces that connect the urban building mass.  This area is devoid of any connection to green space and asking people to move here, come enjoy the blacktop streets and sidewalks won't be enough probably, but small areas with grass, trees, places to walk the dog, sit & read will go along way when linking the buildings and still open up enough land for the business side of design. 

Yes - exactly! In fact, that sort of concept is essentially what the current draft of the City Center Small Area Plan includes - small slivers contained within a much larger massing of large buildings. You said it quite well, Hike - man-made open spaces in RVA tend to just be empty spaces. What's the reason for that? RVA simply doesn't yet have the population to make open spaces much more lively, viable spaces - particularly downtown. It was recently published that downtown in 1940 had nearly 29,000 residents. That figure dropped to only a few thousand 20-ish years ago/ (I don't have the post/link to it in front of me so please excuse any inaccuracies in quoting figures.)

When I was in undergrad at VCU back in the early 80s, my urban planning professors suggested that downtown Richmond needed a MINIMUM population of 30,000 to become a viable, 24-hour-a-day location. Undoubtedly they were drawing from good, hard data that clearly showed how densely populated downtown was just 40-45 years prior. As I recall, they set the threshold 'floor' at 30,000 - and suggested that significantly more population downtown would only enhance downtown's vitality.

Fast forward to today. As city planners have pointed out, Richmond in general and downtown in particular is landlocked. The only way sufficient density can be built into the fabric of the city is to go vertical. Height and scale (meaning, limiting neither; rather enhancing both) are the keys to this. It's my hope that we will see significant massing, significant height, significant intensity of development and significant density sprouting not only in City Center, Monroe Ward, etc., but all around downtown and in other parts of the city. THIS is where Richmond can actualize her vast untapped potential in becoming a much larger city (and metro) and a real destination and go-to city for jobs, new residents, businesses, tourists, etc. The possibilities are endless if we will think big enough and reach for the stars.

Edited June 25, 2021 by I miss RVA

[I miss RVA]

This could just as easily be posted in the Richmond Regional Transportation subforum - but I figured that since it more specifically impacts downtown and City Center in particular, that this is the place to put it.

Somewhat of a bookend story to the announcement that demolition of the Public Safety Building will begin soon on the downtown block to be redeveloped with the Ronald McDonald, The Doorways and the VCU Health tower project -- GRTC is working to relocate to a new, temporary bus transfer plaza in a parking lot right across from the John Marshall Courts Building - a lot of work going into this, but it looks like it will be somewhat of an upgrade over what's downtown right now - and a good way for GRTC to hopefully springboard to a new, permanent transfer plaza downtown when this part of the city realllllllllllly gets underway with development in the next several years. I do hope some kind of plan is really properly developed as part of a greater whole to put a good, functional, expandable transfer station downtown that could theoretically include BRT (rail even??? Is that too much to dream for? ) - and that would serve as a proper hub for GRTC's downtown AND citywide service.

https://richmond.com/news/local/grtc-submits-plans-for-new-temporary-transfer-plaza-in-parking-lot-across-from-john-marshall/article_b03d3871-5b83-59b6-9d3a-3bd3bb7e9ab1.html#tracking-source=article-related-bottom

 

[Hike]

29 minutes ago, I miss RVA said:

This could just as easily be posted in the Richmond Regional Transportation subforum - but I figured that since it more specifically impacts downtown and City Center in particular, that this is the place to put it.

Somewhat of a bookend story to the announcement that demolition of the Public Safety Building will begin soon on the downtown block to be redeveloped with the Ronald McDonald, The Doorways and the VCU Health tower project -- GRTC is working to relocate to a new, temporary bus transfer plaza in a parking lot right across from the John Marshall Courts Building - a lot of work going into this, but it looks like it will be somewhat of an upgrade over what's downtown right now - and a good way for GRTC to hopefully springboard to a new, permanent transfer plaza downtown when this part of the city realllllllllllly gets underway with development in the next several years. I do hope some kind of plan is really properly developed as part of a greater whole to put a good, functional, expandable transfer station downtown that could theoretically include BRT (rail even??? Is that too much to dream for? ) - and that would serve as a proper hub for GRTC's downtown AND citywide service.

https://richmond.com/news/local/grtc-submits-plans-for-new-temporary-transfer-plaza-in-parking-lot-across-from-john-marshall/article_b03d3871-5b83-59b6-9d3a-3bd3bb7e9ab1.html#tracking-source=article-related-bottom

 

I saw this too, wish there was a permanent solution that could get this taken care.  Having hiked in out of state locations, the trails lead you to smaller towns quite often and I'm surprised how many small cites have transfer stations to get around, it keeps things organized and easier for linking, it's the hub.  The one linked below is for Roanoke, this is being bid right now and unless it comes in way over budget, will be built starting soon.  Hope this gets resolved here, it will be a compliment to the pulse and just makes sense to have this.  

https://www.roanokeva.gov/DocumentCenter/View/14660/Transit-Station-Rendering-2020