Jump to content

Diamond Area / Hermitage Rd Corridor / Ownby District


whw53

Recommended Posts

  • 4 weeks later...

TRP snapping up more land near the Diamond. 

https://richmondbizsense.com/2021/09/13/thalhimer-realty-partners-snaps-up-property-near-the-diamond-for-2m/

Small piece of industrial land, not prime for redevelopment without the assembly of adjacent parcels. Assuming a redevelopment play in the future, development team would not be saddled with a rezoning to build anything substantial. Unlike the Wesco tract which they took through the rezoning process earlier in the year,  this area is now mapped as TOD-1 through the recent city initiated zoning action. 

Edited by whw53
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems like details are continuously released in drips and drabs - and still nothing definitive is set in stone.  There needs to be a new ballpark by 2025. I wonder if they'll be painting hand railings on opening day of 2025 because it's taken so ridiculously long to get a plan in place and start turning shovels of dirt to get something built?

I still lament losing the R-Braves 11 years ago - I grew up going to R-Braves games from almost the time I could walk. It would be nice to see Triple-A baseball back in RVA.

https://richmond.com/news/local/more-details-emerge-on-development-plan-involving-new-flying-squirrels-ballpark-vcu-athletics-village/article_47d1d12c-6959-5b83-bc5f-00be58656ddd.html#tracking-source=home-top-story

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, I miss RVA said:

Seems like details are continuously released in drips and drabs - and still nothing definitive is set in stone.  There needs to be a new ballpark by 2025. I wonder if they'll be painting hand railings on opening day of 2025 because it's taken so ridiculously long to get a plan in place and start turning shovels of dirt to get something built?

I still lament losing the R-Braves 11 years ago - I grew up going to R-Braves games from almost the time I could walk. It would be nice to see Triple-A baseball back in RVA.

https://richmond.com/news/local/more-details-emerge-on-development-plan-involving-new-flying-squirrels-ballpark-vcu-athletics-village/article_47d1d12c-6959-5b83-bc5f-00be58656ddd.html#tracking-source=home-top-story

Not a baseball fan but glad the Braves left and we got the Squirrels. The Braves always acted like we owed them something, like we were some dump ass town that was lucky to have them. Screw the Braves. The Squirrels are way better at what they do, they know how to not just market their team but create goodwill around town - and that's reflected in the tickets sales numbers vs what the Braves were.  I'd much rather have a "lesser" team that's all in on Richmond than a "better" team that thinks they're too good to be here.

 

That said I'm paywall blocked on RTD-, anyone want to share broad strokes of that article?

Edited by 123fakestreet
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, I miss RVA said:

Seems like details are continuously released in drips and drabs - and still nothing definitive is set in stone.  There needs to be a new ballpark by 2025. I wonder if they'll be painting hand railings on opening day of 2025 because it's taken so ridiculously long to get a plan in place and start turning shovels of dirt to get something built?

I still lament losing the R-Braves 11 years ago - I grew up going to R-Braves games from almost the time I could walk. It would be nice to see Triple-A baseball back in RVA.

https://richmond.com/news/local/more-details-emerge-on-development-plan-involving-new-flying-squirrels-ballpark-vcu-athletics-village/article_47d1d12c-6959-5b83-bc5f-00be58656ddd.html#tracking-source=home-top-story

My wife refers to a term called “vague-booking” when someone posts something on Facebook that lacks detail. This article is vague-reading because, notwithstanding Parney’s very enthusiastic quote, I couldn’t understand what had even progressed here.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, 123fakestreet said:

Not a baseball fan but glad the Braves left and we got the Squirrels. The Braves always acted like we owed them something, like we were some dump ass town that was lucky to have them. Screw the Braves. The Squirrels are way better at what they do, they know how to not just market their team but create goodwill around town - and that's reflected in the tickets sales numbers vs what the Braves were.  I'd much rather have a "lesser" team that's all in on Richmond than a "better" team that thinks they're too good to be here.

 

That said I'm paywall blocked on RTD-, anyone want to share broad strokes of that article?

Pretty much what DowntownCoruscant posted - it's so vague that it's ridiculous. The article (and by extension the presentation it's covering) seems to use a lot of words without really saying anything. It's vague to the point of making it difficult to comprehend what's really happening. Seems like a whole lot of talk about a whole lot of nothing actually happening. A - "rah-rah" piece, if nothing else.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, 123fakestreet said:

Not a baseball fan but glad the Braves left and we got the Squirrels. The Braves always acted like we owed them something, like we were some dump ass town that was lucky to have them. Screw the Braves. The Squirrels are way better at what they do, they know how to not just market their team but create goodwill around town - and that's reflected in the tickets sales numbers vs what the Braves were.  I'd much rather have a "lesser" team that's all in on Richmond than a "better" team that thinks they're too good to be here.

Fully agree on this.   Granted, they are also my old home team and I despise the Braves :)

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Amen! RVA dodged a major financial bullet. Letting the Braves leave was a BIG WIN for the city. See what happened in their hometown, where I now live:
1. Gwinnett County, where they moved, committed a massive amount of public dollars and has struggled. They had to change the name as it confused people who thought they were going to the actual Major League Braves game. Gwinnett will be paying off the debt for the stadium for years. https://www.ajc.com/news/local-govt--politics/refinancing-coolray-field-debt-could-save-gwinnett-millions/MUIVMRAVlWp8J0IJBQCVwI/
2. The Braves just care about the bottom line, but no surprise as they're a business. They moved their Major League team out of the relatively new stadium built for the Olympics and left Atlanta's urban core to go out to suburban Vinings in Cobb County. They built a soul-less entertainment district called The Battery adjacent to the stadium, which makes sense for them as they are the landlord and get most of the revenue. But going to a game there feels so generic and sterile, and Cobb County is on the hook for $400 million in taxpayer subsidies. https://www.ajc.com/news/local-govt--politics/cobb-reckons-with-braves-stadium-debt-during-pandemic/jh3SXflP3iNIvftXNQvo3M/

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites


2 hours ago, flaneur said:

Amen! RVA dodged a major financial bullet. Letting the Braves leave was a BIG WIN for the city. See what happened in their hometown, where I now live:
1. Gwinnett County, where they moved, committed a massive amount of public dollars and has struggled. They had to change the name as it confused people who thought they were going to the actual Major League Braves game. Gwinnett will be paying off the debt for the stadium for years. https://www.ajc.com/news/local-govt--politics/refinancing-coolray-field-debt-could-save-gwinnett-millions/MUIVMRAVlWp8J0IJBQCVwI/
2. The Braves just care about the bottom line, but no surprise as they're a business. They moved their Major League team out of the relatively new stadium built for the Olympics and left Atlanta's urban core to go out to suburban Vinings in Cobb County. They built a soul-less entertainment district called The Battery adjacent to the stadium, which makes sense for them as they are the landlord and get most of the revenue. But going to a game there feels so generic and sterile, and Cobb County is on the hook for $400 million in taxpayer subsidies. https://www.ajc.com/news/local-govt--politics/cobb-reckons-with-braves-stadium-debt-during-pandemic/jh3SXflP3iNIvftXNQvo3M/

I love the new stadium I do hate it’s out in the suburbs in Cobb county but loved the stadium just wish it could of been in the city itself. I also loved the falcons new stadium and the college football hall of fame. I’m a Georgia fan in sports anyways. I have season tickets to all of the bulldogs games every year. I only pull for the Braves and bulldogs. Other sports in atlanta I’m not a  fan of. However just remember who owns the Braves liberty media are big time cheapskates to even the players. Won’t fork out the money to build a World Series team which the front office promised by. Certain deadline and has yet to happen. I’m afraid there cornerstone player Freddie freeman is going to get lowballed by them and liberty media will end up screwing up like they already do with everything. I hate to this day that ted turner sold the Braves to time Warner and then off to liberty media from time Warner. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Icetera said:

Fully agree on this.   Granted, they are also my old home team and I despise the Braves :)

I'm a life-long Yankees fan, so I don't really have a dog in this fight. I did, however, really enjoy going to see the R-Braves, especially when I was a kid. I still remember taking a tumble and skinning the daylights out of my knees at Parker Field at my first or second ever R-Braves game when I was realllllllllllllllllllllllllllllly little. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Downtowner said:

I love the new stadium I do hate it’s out in the suburbs in Cobb county but loved the stadium just wish it could of been in the city itself. I also loved the falcons new stadium and the college football hall of fame. I’m a Georgia fan in sports anyways. I have season tickets to all of the bulldogs games every year. I only pull for the Braves and bulldogs. Other sports in atlanta I’m not a  fan of. However just remember who owns the Braves liberty media are big time cheapskates to even the players. Won’t fork out the money to build a World Series team which the front office promised by. Certain deadline and has yet to happen. I’m afraid there cornerstone player Freddie freeman is going to get lowballed by them and liberty media will end up screwing up like they already do with everything. I hate to this day that ted turner sold the Braves to time Warner and then off to liberty media from time Warner. 

I'm ridiculously old school when it comes to football and I can't stand domed, enclosed or roofed stadiums (aside from the old Astrodome, which was a place that had some real character) - or these stadiums with tiny holes for "open roofs" (when they are actually open). And that awful field turf or whatever the shiny plastic stuff a lot of NFL teams play on nowadays in an abomination to the Nth degree.

Football is an outdoor sport. It's meant to be played outdoors - in the elements. Yes, that means playing in the heat and humidity down south early in the season, and in the bitter cold up north late in the season. That means playing in bright sunshine, rain, sleet, snow and ice. That means playing on natural grass, dirt, mud, ice. This shiny new spaceship that the powers that be in LA built for the Rams and Chargers gets praise heaped upon it  ad nauseam - and I find the place absolutely disgusting as a venue for pro football - particularly when a CLASSIC venue like the LA Coliseum has hosted college football for more than 80 years - and pro football (with a few notable gaps) since 1950. I know ... it's all about money and fan "amenities" ... but when a huge circular scoreboard is more important than than the actual quality of the action on the field ... and when fan "amenities", luxury boxes, revenue-generating extras that turn a football game into a visit into an amusement park are more important than the game itself, then something is SERIOUSLY wrong.

Give me natural grass, the natural open-air outdoor elements and an emphasis on actually playing football ANY DAY over the Disney World-esque "amusement" factor of going to an NFL game. While I love the way the game is played today - and the current generation superstar players - I much prefer the old, historic venues where the game was played in real sunshine on real grass or with real rain or snow falling or real heat or bone-chilling cold. Even though it's enclosed, at least the new stadium in Las Vegas has a natural grass field - so that takes away some (not all, but some) of the "ugh" factor for me when watching games televised from there. Ditto the Cardinals' place in Glendale - it has a roof, (about the size of a shoebox), but they do open the roof now and then. And that field is natural grass. Too bad they couldn't have stayed at Sun Devil stadium - at least that's a fully outdoor, open-air, natural grass facility.

Funny how over the past decade or two hockey has been moving increasingly to playing (at least a few games) outdoors in the open air - while pro football has been moving increasingly to playing in fully enclosed indoor stadiums. It just boggles my mind.

Edited by I miss RVA
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, I miss RVA said:

I'm ridiculously old school when it comes to football and I can't stand domed, enclosed or roofed stadiums (aside from the old Astrodome, which was a place that had some real character) - or these stadiums with tiny holes for "open roofs" (when they are actually open). And that awful field turf or whatever the shiny plastic stuff a lot of NFL teams play on nowadays in an abomination to the Nth degree.

Football is an outdoor sport. It's meant to be played outdoors - in the elements. Yes, that means playing in the heat and humidity down south early in the season, and in the bitter cold up north late in the season. That means playing in bright sunshine, rain, sleet, snow and ice. That means playing on natural grass, dirt, mud, ice. This shiny new spaceship that the powers that be in LA built for the Rams and Chargers gets praise heaped upon it  ad nauseam - and I find the place absolutely disgusting as a venue for pro football - particularly when a CLASSIC venue like the LA Coliseum has hosted college football for more than 80 years - and pro football (with a few notable gaps) since 1950. I know ... it's all about money and fan "amenities" ... but when a huge circular scoreboard is more important than than the actual quality of the action on the field ... and when fan "amenities", luxury boxes, revenue-generating extras that turn a football game into a visit into an amusement park are more important than the game itself, then something is SERIOUSLY wrong.

Give me natural grass, the natural open-air outdoor elements and an emphasis on actually playing football ANY DAY over the Disney World-esque "amusement" factor of going to an NFL game. While I love the way the game is played today - and the current generation superstar players - I much prefer the old, historic venues where the game was played in real sunshine on real grass or with real rain or snow falling or real heat or bone-chilling cold. Even though it's enclosed, at least the new stadium in Las Vegas has a natural grass field - so that takes away some (not all, but some) of the "ugh" factor for me when watching games televised from there. Ditto the Cardinals' place in Glendale - it has a roof, (about the size of a shoebox), but they do open the roof now and then. And that field is natural grass. Too bad they couldn't have stayed at Sun Devil stadium - at least that's a fully outdoor, open-air, natural grass facility.

Funny how over the past decade or two hockey has been moving increasingly to playing (at least a few games) outdoors in the open air - while pro football has been moving increasingly to playing in fully enclosed indoor stadiums. It just boggles my mind.

Yeah I’m a Detroit lions fan for football trust me i know it’s be a train wreck since the Ford family bought them in the 60s. Barry Sanders is what got me into being a lions fan. I was young at the time and little did I know the dark history behind the team itself. As I got older it became more and more clear when you had bust after bust after bust and the pain of losing every year. Though the only indoor stadium I love is the lions because it is a once manufacturing plant turned into a football stadium. It was one of the most interesting things I read when they built Ford field. Leaving the Pontiac silver dome though was sad but was much needed. 

Edited by Downtowner
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Downtowner said:

Yeah I’m a Detroit lions fan for football trust me i know it’s be a train wreck since the Ford family bought them in the 60s. Barry Sanders is what got me into being a lions fan. I was young at the time and little did I know the dark history behind the team itself. As I got older it became more and more clear when you had bust after bust after bust and the pain of losing every year. Though the only indoor stadium I love is the lions because it is a once manufacturing plant turned into a football stadium. It was one of the most interesting things I read when they built Ford field. Leaving the Pontiac silver dome though was sad but was much needed. 

I remember when the Lions played at Tiger Stadium. I loved those old stadiums - they were the most amazing venues for professional sports. I grew up going to RFK Stadium (when there were tickets to be had - usually you had to know someone who had season tickets who wasn't going to use them for a given Sunday or Monday night) - and, of course, when they transitioned to FedEx Field, I didn't mind. Bigger stadium - farther out, but I enjoyed going. I was at the second-ever game at FedEx - a Monday nighter against Dallas - Washington won 21-16. Had end zone seats at the front of the upper deck. Just was glad to be there. It wasn't ol' RFK - but I never complained when I got tickets to a game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


2 hours ago, RiverYuppy said:

TRP to build 7-story apartment building across from the Diamond

 

This is just WOW!  Hermitage is about to be such a different road.  

Great infill for that spot, given the bridge over the RR tracks right there it will have some "height infill" as well at 7 stories and make the bridge less prominent which will be nice.  Unfortunately no way I would want to live right next to the Greyhound station, I wonder how that will go for residents.

Article says city now expecting to issue RFP on Diamond area "by end of year." Last spring it was supposed to be "by end of summer." Let's hope we see it soon, this area is going to explode.

Edited by 123fakestreet
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

I don't know how I feel about this. I'm glad the city is looking to step up to the plate and be aggressive about marketing - but any time there's city involvement on the potential development side, I get reallllllllllly nervous. I always worry that a SNAFU will render the whole plan FUBAR. Seems to happen when the city doesn't stick to governing and administrating. Just an observation from watching 50 years of this stuff.

And - "Diamond District" ... REALLY???

Finally - if the city IS going to be involved (I wish they'd just sell off the land to private developers - just maintain enough control to ensure that the Richmond 300 Plan is followed. What worries me is that the city is going to get this proposal or that proposal and it's going to want to have a say in how this goes or that -- rather than let the market (which has been and continues to be pretty hot in RVA) drive the development. One of my biggest fears is that what we saw in the Richmond 300 plan for that part of town looks really robust, has two-thumbs-up agreement from planners and has community/citizen buy-in. As such - if the city is intricately involved in this upcoming process, how closely will they adhere to the R300 plan??  Or will they go wandering off into the wheat field looking to develop the next "it" project that will supposedly "save the city" but in reality will only burnish someone's political resume? How might competing viewpoints (that tend to devolve somehow into political City Council fights) impact this process? The R300 plan laid out a pretty solid, cohesive, well thought out, well conceived overall framework - and the Greater Scott's Additional Small Area Plan was/is the fine tuning, is it not?

RBS makes a good point:

"The city’s recently approved master plan outlines for the land a new multi-purpose stadium replacing The Diamond to be shared by the Richmond Flying Squirrels and VCU, along with retail and residential buildings, parks and multi-modal transit infrastructure."

That said - will the city stray from that to pursue something else?

From Richmond BizSense:

https://richmondbizsense.com/2021/10/12/city-marketing-the-diamond-district-as-it-seeks-redevelopment-proposals/

Edited by I miss RVA
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, I miss RVA said:

let the market (which has been and continues to be pretty hot in RVA) drive the development.

 

I followed the same school of thought for years. However, my mind has been changed after diving deep into it. The problem with letting the "free market handle this" is that the corporations and developers will do what's best for their profit. Profit for the companies doesn't technically mean progress, profit, or prosperity for the residents and community. 

If we allowed the free market to reign over Byrd Park, the entire park wouldn't exist any longer and it would be filled in with apartment rentals. We would never see any subsidized housing go up. The pulse would never have been developed to what it is today.  The James River shoreline would be riddled with million dollar homes and RVA wouldn't have such a prosperous biking, trail running, or trail walking community that brings in thousands of people each year (JRPS) and millions of dollars.

To me, the "let the free market handle it" train of thought was convenient to say because it allowed me to basically wipe my hands of the matter and let someone else deal with it. The government can't and shouldn't do that...we literally elect them to represent and fight for us for that very reason with these types of community planning and building activities and needs.

I don't want to see 1000 apartments go up in the Diamond District. I don't just want to see a 40 story building go up because it will make our skyline look cool and competitive with Raleigh or whatever other up-and-coming city. I want the Diamond District, in this example, to have actual homes with high density. I want to see duplex and quadplexes. I want to see a new school go up. I want retail and restaurants that are walkable. I want to see automobile infrastructure not take over 80% of our roads. I want houses that will help building generational wealth for families in RVA so that we can raise community minded generations to come... not just some 700 sqft apartment that will house a young professional for a few years before they move out to buy a house in a more affordable area. Apartments are great for short term solutions but we need long term planning...and a corporation or developer simply don't care for long term planning like that because it's not in their best interest (i.e. profit). Just my $0.02.

Edited by ancientcarpenter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ancientcarpenter said:

 

I followed the same school of thought for years. However, my mind has been changed after diving deep into it. The problem with letting the "free market handle this" is that the corporations and developers will do what's best for their profit. Profit for the companies doesn't technically mean progress, profit, or prosperity for the residents and community. 

If we allowed the free market to reign over Byrd Park, the entire park wouldn't exist any longer and it would be filled in with apartment rentals. We would never see any subsidized housing go up. The pulse would never have been developed to what it is today.  The James River shoreline would be riddled with million dollar homes and RVA wouldn't have such a prosperous biking, trail running, or trail walking community that brings in thousands of people each year (JRPS) and millions of dollars.

To me, the "let the free market handle it" train of thought was convenient to say because it allowed me to basically wipe my hands of the matter and let someone else deal with it. The government can't and shouldn't do that...we literally elect them to represent and fight for us for that very reason with these types of community planning and building activities and needs.

I don't want to see 1000 apartments go up in the Diamond District. I don't just want to see a 40 story building go up because it will make our skyline look cool and competitive with Raleigh or whatever other up-and-coming city. I want the Diamond District, in this example, to have actual homes with high density. I want to see duplex and quadplexes. I want to see a new school go up. I want retail and restaurants that are walkable. I want to see automobile infrastructure not take over 80% of our roads. I want houses that will help building generational wealth for families in RVA so that we can raise community minded generations to come... not just some 700 sqft apartment that will house a young professional for a few years before they move out to buy a house in a more affordable area. Apartments are great for short term solutions but we need long term planning...and a corporation or developer simply don't care for long term planning like that because it's not in their best interest (i.e. profit). Just my $0.02.

While I see your intent, there is a big difference between the city preventing development via parks versus leading development like we are seeing with the Diamond District.  I love a lot of your desires but am not sure some of the lower density residential uses would be the best fit for this site.  We need them, but we have a lot of lower density areas of the city to still fill in plus the various Courts.  Being sandwiched between two entertainment destinations may also not be a great fit for a school, given the amount of foot traffic.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DowntownCoruscant said:

The labels are getting confusing. I know DD is just to drum up interest in the RFI, but is the broader area still considered Scott’s Addition Extended (or whatever)? Not to be confused with Scott’s Addition 2.0 in Henrico.

Greater Scott's Addition.

 

Diamond District makes it sound like it's the place to shop for jewelry. 

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

9 minutes ago, 123fakestreet said:

Greater Scott's Addition.

 

Diamond District makes it sound like it's the place to shop for jewelry. 

"Greater" implies a collection of neighborhoods, so it still needs something to define the neighborhood itself.  Currently the neighborhood is "The Diamond" so I am not hating "Diamond District" since it retains its original recent naming.  Maybe the pawn shops can move there?  If "Diamond District" does not work then perhaps at least rename it to whatever the area may have been called before the Diamond?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah Greater Scott's Addition was a lazy attempt by planners to associate far flung , disconnected industrial areas into common association.  Areas that are closer to the Fan, Newtowne,, VUU, Sherwood Park  etc are now  part of  the Scott's Addition by decree ?- i don't know if that is needed and is a tad offensive as it would appear to favor groups like the Scott's Addition Association over others for instance. Additionally, it dilutes the term and  sense of place and is historically inaccurate. Diamond District builds off a previous designation at least sort of like Navy Hill did.  

Ok, now for my idea...

Cary St = CaryTown, what about Ashe Blvd = Asheville? Ashe Addition? Asheboro? AsheTown? no? i donno...

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, ancientcarpenter said:

 

I followed the same school of thought for years. However, my mind has been changed after diving deep into it. The problem with letting the "free market handle this" is that the corporations and developers will do what's best for their profit. Profit for the companies doesn't technically mean progress, profit, or prosperity for the residents and community. 

If we allowed the free market to reign over Byrd Park, the entire park wouldn't exist any longer and it would be filled in with apartment rentals. We would never see any subsidized housing go up. The pulse would never have been developed to what it is today.  The James River shoreline would be riddled with million dollar homes and RVA wouldn't have such a prosperous biking, trail running, or trail walking community that brings in thousands of people each year (JRPS) and millions of dollars.

To me, the "let the free market handle it" train of thought was convenient to say because it allowed me to basically wipe my hands of the matter and let someone else deal with it. The government can't and shouldn't do that...we literally elect them to represent and fight for us for that very reason with these types of community planning and building activities and needs.

I don't want to see 1000 apartments go up in the Diamond District. I don't just want to see a 40 story building go up because it will make our skyline look cool and competitive with Raleigh or whatever other up-and-coming city. I want the Diamond District, in this example, to have actual homes with high density. I want to see duplex and quadplexes. I want to see a new school go up. I want retail and restaurants that are walkable. I want to see automobile infrastructure not take over 80% of our roads. I want houses that will help building generational wealth for families in RVA so that we can raise community minded generations to come... not just some 700 sqft apartment that will house a young professional for a few years before they move out to buy a house in a more affordable area. Apartments are great for short term solutions but we need long term planning...and a corporation or developer simply don't care for long term planning like that because it's not in their best interest (i.e. profit). Just my $0.02.

 

We are in agreement regarding the city exercising a level of control over development.  A full-on laissez faire approach to unchecked "free market development" is an epic disaster waiting to happen. That exercising of control falls into the city's role of governing, administering and regulating. I'm 100% with you on that.

Where I have a problem is with the city being an actual "developer". That's what we have a Richmond 300 Plan for - and in this case, a Greater Scott's Addition Small Area Plan to fine tune the R-300's vision for that area.

I have to play devil's advocate though on one of your points: I think we have fairly divergent philosophical approaches regarding how we see Richmond as a city and how that impacts her future development. I'll agree - I also don't want to see just 1,000 apartments go up in the "Diamond District" - I want to see 2,000 or 3,000!! And I don't want to see only a 40-story building rise on the downtown skyline - I want to see 60 ... 70... 80 stories -- as well as several 40-story buildings -- and not just one single tower that juts out like a Graf Zeppelin mooring mast over the skyline. It's not to compete with Charlotte or Atlanta. I want these kinds of buildings because they will indicate that Richmond can support them - meaning, she is a large-enough city to have these kinds of buildings.

I tend to think that we see RVA quite differently. I envision her becoming a much larger, national-level "tier-1" city,  Something akin to Boston or Philadelphia. But I just turned 59 - and I doubt I'll live to see that day, even if I somehow make it another 30 years.  Some of what you're suggesting you want to see I actually agree with on principle, IF applied to appropriate parts of town (as Icetera said - low-density areas where there is plenty of infill potential) But if it's the primary driver in how the city develops going forward, it will hold RVA back in a big way.  And I can't support that.

Either way - take it for what it's worth - also my 2 cents (using authentic pre-1959 Lincoln wheat pennies!)

6 hours ago, Icetera said:

While I see your intent, there is a big difference between the city preventing development via parks versus leading development like we are seeing with the Diamond District.  I love a lot of your desires but am not sure some of the lower density residential uses would be the best fit for this site.  We need them, but we have a lot of lower density areas of the city to still fill in plus the various Courts.  Being sandwiched between two entertainment destinations may also not be a great fit for a school, given the amount of foot traffic.

You said it way better than I can!

  • Like 2
Link to comment
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.