Richmond Grocery Wars

[Shakman]

5 hours ago, Hike said:

That’s nice! Doubt that scale of building is coming here. If you take the Publix in Carytown, add “x” number of apartments on top, it’s in essence what this is, just a smaller scale, there’s a parking deck within, it’s tight to the street, wanted to show there’s a project here that’s not just a single story, 4 block flat roof with a sea of parking surrounding the grocery store. 

I know that development.  It's part of a multi-building highrise development in Arlington; next to Amazon's HQ2.  There are plenty of buildings in Richmond taller than that.  We need this type of density with grocery stores on the ground level here in Richmond.

Edited January 31, 2023 by Shakman

[Hike]

11 minutes ago, Shakman said:

I know that development.  It's part of a multi-building highrise development in Arlington; next to Amazon's HQ2.  There are plenty of buildings in Richmond taller than that.  We need this type of density with grocery stores on the ground level here in Richmond.

I’m not sure why but we don’t see them like this, at least up to now. Maybe the buildings planned where the silos are coming down have that density(?) so there’s hope the future could include something similar to the one in Arlington. 

[Flood Zone]

Arlington County has almost 3X the population density of the City of Richmond. It would be awesome if RVA got something like this, but the person upthread who was saying "take the Carytown Publix, add some apartments on top" is kind of on-point. 

[Icetera]

52 minutes ago, Shakman said:

I know that development.  It's part of a multi-building highrise development in Arlington; next to Amazon's HQ2.  There are plenty of buildings in Richmond taller than that.  We need this type of density with grocery stores on the ground level here in Richmond.

Apparently, we currently have 16 buildings taller than The Bartlett (264ft).  Only one is residential, the CNB, and has the same number of floors but considerably less units.  The Southern States building should squeak ahead of The Bartlett as well.

[I miss RVA]

2 hours ago, Shakman said:

I know that development.  It's part of a multi-building highrise development in Arlington; next to Amazon's HQ2.  There are plenty of buildings in Richmond taller than that.  We need this type of density with grocery stores on the ground level here in Richmond.

This (the Bartlett) is the kind of building that I envision for a portion of that four-square-city-block parcel that's going up for sale in central Manchester. This very kind of building could be EXACTLY what serves as a catalyst for a kind of "downtown Manchester" so to speak. Height- density - mixed/use - residential/ AND A GROCER on the ground floor. Make a building like the Bartlett one of the centerpiece buildings of this four-block square "downtown Manchester" site and we'll really have something! We need a developer (developers) to come in and PACK multiple buildings into these four blocks. This is one instance where we absolutely NEED to "NOVA our RVA"!!!  A multi-building/tower development on those four blocks would be EPIC.

Edited January 31, 2023 by I miss RVA

[Shakman]

1 hour ago, I miss RVA said:

This (the Bartlett) is the kind of building that I envision for a portion of that four-square-city-block parcel that's going up for sale in central Manchester. This very kind of building could be EXACTLY what serves as a catalyst for a kind of "downtown Manchester" so to speak. Height- density - mixed/use - residential/ AND A GROCER on the ground floor. Make a building like the Bartlett one of the centerpiece buildings of this four-block square "downtown Manchester" site and we'll really have something! We need a developer (developers) to come in and PACK multiple buildings into these four blocks. This is one instance where we absolutely NEED to "NOVA our RVA"!!!  A multi-building/tower development on those four blocks would be EPIC.

Absolutely in Manchester.  Even Monroe Ward can benefit from this type of development. 

[Hike]

It doesn’t really explain the lack of height in Arlington but density looks like it should be a part of the formula. Arlington is building in 26 sq. miles where Richmond is developing over all corners of its 62 sq. miles. 

[eandslee]

2 hours ago, I miss RVA said:

This (the Bartlett) is the kind of building that I envision for a portion of that four-square-city-block parcel that's going up for sale in central Manchester. This very kind of building could be EXACTLY what serves as a catalyst for a kind of "downtown Manchester" so to speak. Height- density - mixed/use - residential/ AND A GROCER on the ground floor. Make a building like the Bartlett one of the centerpiece buildings of this four-block square "downtown Manchester" site and we'll really have something! We need a developer (developers) to come in and PACK multiple buildings into these four blocks. This is one instance where we absolutely NEED to "NOVA our RVA"!!!  A multi-building/tower development on those four blocks would be EPIC.

I go passed The Bartlett virtually everyday which is very close to the Pentagon where I work.  I’ve even been inside the Whole Foods before.  Pretty darn urban!  I always wanted developers in Richmond to think this kind of density.  Why do developers in Richmond (sometimes the same ones) develop multiple residential “high rises” in the same area of town with only 150-300 units per building?  Why not just maximize the building footprint you have and plop 1000+ units in it?  You’re going to build that many units in that part of town anyway…why break it up in multiple developments?  The Bartlett proves you don’t have to go too terribly tall to achieve this kind of density too, but boy does it make a statement in Pentagon City!  The surrounding area is just booming with development now due to Amazon’s HQ2, but Richmond could have its version of that too one day. By the way, this tower was built before the Amazon announcement, so this was the thinking even before Amazon. Just need to translate this sort of development to Richmond somehow. 

[I miss RVA]

3 hours ago, eandslee said:

Why do developers in Richmond (sometimes the same ones) develop multiple residential “high rises” in the same area of town with only 150-300 units per building?  Why not just maximize the building footprint you have and plop 1000+ units in it?

You’re going to build that many units in that part of town anyway…why break it up in multiple developments?

 The Bartlett proves you don’t have to go too terribly tall to achieve this kind of density too, but boy does it make a statement in Pentagon City!  The surrounding area is just booming with development now due to Amazon’s HQ2, but Richmond could have its version of that too one day. By the way, this tower was built before the Amazon announcement, so this was the thinking even before Amazon. Just need to translate this sort of development to Richmond somehow. 

1.) As I'm sure @wrldcoupe4& @upzoningisgoodwill tell us - it all boils down to "market size" - which is the BANE of RVA's existence. As I've soapboxed on here numerous times before, we're still just too damned small. The 150-300 units per building is what the market will currently support. I don't 100% comprehend the term "pencil" or "pencil out" as a verb form (other than meaning to write down/reserve/tentatively plan - "to pencil in") -- but I take it to mean "add up" mathematically -- meaning profitability of a development. The uber-big 1,000-plus unit-size projects you see in NOVA work because demand there is off the scale compared to the RVA market for a variety of reasons:

The market size makes the biggest difference - as does the location (for example, proximity to the center of NATIONAL political power vs proximity to center of STATE political power.)  More granularly this can be understood by looking at the much higher population density (as well as the overall population) of NOVA - which factors into something that has been mentioned elsewhere -- the "economic density" - meaning, population density combined with economic level of the population. The math on cost vs ROI on these HUGE projects in NOVA works ("pencils out"?) for developers whereas right now there's no way in hell that same projects would work in Richmond. It's an unfortunate "nature of the beast" thing - but I believe that's the reality. @wrldcoupe4& @upzoningisgoodplease correct me and provide clarification, especially if I'm a mile off base on this one.

2.) As a layman, I could VERY well be totally wrong on this - but I get the impression it's MUCH cheaper to build multiple - smaller - buildings that equate to the same number of units or square footage than it is to build a single, super large (particularly TALL) structure. The cost goes up EXPONENTIALLY with height - and not as much with flat square footage. Take a 500,000 square foot building. Put it on fewer floors, bigger floor plates - MUCH cheaper than putting it on more floors, smaller floor plates. We see this all the time looking at a lot of the newer, proposed high rise residential buildings in RVA vs a lot of high rise residential construction in NOVA, the Carolina cities, Austin, etc. In those cities, the buildings are often significantly taller than they are wide. In RVA they're almost always MUCH wider than they are tall, even when they have double-digit floors.

Again, @wrldcoupe4& @upzoningisgood- y'all are the experts. Am I in the ballpark on this?

3.) Agreed. But we need an "Amazon-esqe" kind of relo to make this happen. I keep thinking CoStar could be a driver for this in the city. That's one of the many reasons I was hoping/praying we'd get LEGO's HQ here (not happening, obviously) - because if they tag-teamed the factory in the burbs with the HQ in the city (or even on the EDGE of the city) - that might help drive something akin to what you see happening in Pentagon City - although, still, on a much smaller scale.

"MARKET SIZE" people. Say it with me now!  

Edited February 1, 2023 by I miss RVA

[wrldcoupe4]

It’s probably a pretty long explanation and someone else can probably elaborate better, but seems to me the factors are lenders, lease-up, and investor appetite. The 150-350 unit count checks all these boxes and helps get deals out of the ground. The metrics are just different in a major market like DC. There’s a couple larger projects in Richmond in the suburbs, but my guess is they are phased in similarly sized increments to check the boxes above. 
 

and yes, the rents to support high rise need to be a lot higher than 5 story wood frame.  To use the Bartlett (built 9 years ago) as a comparison, rents for a 1 bedroom 700 sf apt are $2,500/month. 1,080 sf 2 bedrooms are $3,700/month.
 

The Ella, which is relatively new near Scott’s Addition has 1 bedroom 700 sf apts for $1,600/month (36% less)  and 1150 sf 2 bedrooms for $2,300/month (38% less). 

[upzoningisgood]

5 hours ago, eandslee said:

Why do developers in Richmond (sometimes the same ones) develop multiple residential “high rises” in the same area of town with only 150-300 units per building?  Why not just maximize the building footprint you have and plop 1000+ units in it?

This is a great question so I want to answer it in depth. Also, I'm interpreting this question as comparing a 300-unit high-rise to a 1000-unit high-rise, not as a 300-unit 1+5 to a 1000-unit high-rise.

There are at least a few limiting factors which I don't believe are exhaustive. My company does not specialize in high-rises but a lot of the below problems are extrapolated from more conventionally-sized apartments.

1) is lease-up. If you build 1000 units, you need to be able to lease them up at sufficient rents. There are two main hurdles in leasing: 30% occupancy and 70%. At 30% occupancy you're covering debt payments. At 70% occupancy you're covering operating expenses. So if you're leasing 1000 units, you need to be carrying extra money until you lease 700 units. Typically, your target lease-up period is 12 months, meaning you want to have leased all of your units within a year. WIth 1000 units that would be 83 per month. I believe renting 83 units in a month would be a Nashville record, for context. Certainly, I've never heard of higher. Now do that 6 more times before you start making a profit.

1a) is organizational complexity. You need more staff to run a large building and running a large headcount and lots of clients is harder than a small one. I know when we're projecting OpEx that larger buildings tend to assume higher salaries for staff, all else equal. There might not be anyone in RVA equipped to run a 1000-person building, or only one. If you find the right person, they're going to hold you over a barrel in salary negotiations. On the other hand, there might be 30 people equipped to run a 200-person apartment.

2) is your dirt. Some soil types are amenable to heavy structures (schist, like in Manhattan). Some are not (limestone, like in Nashville). The heavier your structure, the better dirt (or more thorough sitework) you need to construct it. It might be more economical to do 3 20-story buildings instead of one 60-story building if the soil would require a lot of reinforcing to support the higher weight.

3) is financing. It's always harder to secure $150M in financing than $50M. That's even more true today because interest rates have made it very hard to get money. So, if you can create 1000 units over ten years through 3 $100M buildings, that will be easier than one $300M building.

4) is construction complexity. I don't have deep content knowledge on this, but my understanding is that taller buildings require enhanced specialization and narrow the number of firms that can do it. I can't fully explain the mechanics of this one but I remember hearing about it.

5) is the a psuedo-square-cube law. This only matters for really tall buildings like in NYC, but the square footage of your building while its footprint stays the same, so a greater and greater percent of floorplates need to be filled with elevators to move people around as you start to get really tall.

Edited February 1, 2023 by upzoningisgood

[I miss RVA]

REALLY great stuff, @wrldcoupe4 and @upzoningisgood!! Thanks so much!

This leads to (what to me is) an obvious question: Avery Hall is looking at plunking down somewhere around 550 apartments in two buildings on the Manchester riverfront -- and they're so bullish about the project that they dropped $17.4 M for the property and thus the privilege to spend even MORE in their really serious and deep investment in Richmond. And just down river, Hourigan is looking to build just under 300 units -- but 20 floors (equivalent of 23-24 when you include the pedestal on which the 20 levels of residences will be built.  So @upzoningisgoodthis would definitely be a case of 300 (or fewer) unit high-rises and NOT 300-unit 5 over 1's.

Do these two epic (by Richmond standards) projects check the boxes that you mentioned above (none of the buildings will be in excess of 300 units) -- or given the size and height of the buildings, is this an outlier or -- as Triumph used to advertise for their futuristic-looking sports cars in the 1970s - "the shape of things to come"?  In other words, is this stretching the limit of what the current RVA market dynamics will allow - or do you think that as the Richmond metro continues to grow (hopefully at such a rapid clip that it continues to lead the state as THE population growth engine), these are breakthrough developments that may be signaling a change in what gets developed in RVA? (And by "change" I mean - these bad boys are NOT your typical 5 over 1 stick-frame buildings. Can we expect to see more of these as the area grows?)

Another question (and the rent portion sparks this) -- even though RVA rents have gone up between 8 and 9 percent over a year ago, we're still clocking in MUCH lower than competitor cities. While developers need rents high enough to justify the cost of construction - do we run the risk of "pricing ourselves out" of being "the affordable alternative" to other metro areas that are significantly more expensive? Does Richmond have "enough to offer" to compete with these other cities if rents keep rising here?

Edited February 1, 2023 by I miss RVA

[skinsfan]

https://www.loopnet.com/Listing/10019-Chamberlayne-Rd-Mechanicsville-VA/23446615/

 

I can definitely see Wegmans building their new store here in this upcoming development, especially with Wegmans building their local distribution center in Hanover. 

[upzoningisgood]

20 hours ago, I miss RVA said:

 1) Do you think that as the Richmond metro continues to grow (hopefully at such a rapid clip that it continues to lead the state as THE population growth engine), these are breakthrough developments that may be signaling a change in what gets developed in RVA? (And by "change" I mean - these bad boys are NOT your typical 5 over 1 stick-frame buildings. Can we expect to see more of these as the area grows?)

2)  we run the risk of "pricing ourselves out" of being "the affordable alternative" to other metro areas that are significantly more expensive? Does Richmond have "enough to offer" to compete with these other cities if rents keep rising here?

1) My stance on this is unchanged: I have no idea how Avery Hall is making this deal pencil. I would genuinely love to see their underwriting. I know for a fact we could not get this building type to pencil  in Nashville at Richmond-tier rents. This is doubly-true because Avery Hall's land basis is so high.  (Edit: I forgot they were doing 525 units. Reacted as if the unit count ~300. Land basis at 525 units is actually solid.) There has to be some variable I'm missing. Without knowing how Avery Hall is making this deal pencil, I can't say if their logic is repeatable by other firms. If I was forced to wager, I would stick to my priors and say I would not expect many, if any, high-rises to come online in the near future. However, there is evidence that my priors may need to be updated.

2) No, we do not run the risk of pricing ourselves out. It's conceivable that the city could grow to an extend that the delta between RVA and DC (or Charlotte or Chicago or whatever) narrows considerably. If rents rise in RVA faster than other metro markets and the two values converge, that is a signal (a "revealed preference") that the value proposition for RVA is changing away from being the affordable second choice towards a city worth moving to on its own merits relative to its competitors. "Relative to its competitors" is doing some work here: the gap could narrow because Richmond becomes much better (bigger, more restaurants, maybe a sports team, etc.) or DC (or Charlotte or Chicago or whatever) becomes much worse.*

 

*This assumes that Demand>Supply. If Demand<Supply, the rent gap could widen by either city becoming bigger and cheaper. But if Demand>Supply, the rent gap narrows if your city is becoming relatively more competitive either due to your merits or their problems.

 

 

Edited February 2, 2023 by upzoningisgood

[I miss RVA]

1 hour ago, upzoningisgood said:

1) My stance on this is unchanged: I have no idea how Avery Hall is making this deal pencil. I would genuinely love to see their underwriting. I know for a fact we could not get this building type to pencil  in Nashville at Richmond-tier rents. This is doubly-true because Avery Hall's land basis is so high. There has to be some variable I'm missing. Without knowing how Avery Hall is making this deal pencil, I can't say if their logic is repeatable by other firms. If I was forced to wager, I would stick to my priors and say I would not expect many, if any, high-rises to come online in the near future. However, there is evidence that my priors may need to be updated.

2) No, we do not run the risk of pricing ourselves out. It's conceivable that the city could grow to an extend that the delta between RVA and DC (or Charlotte or Chicago or whatever) narrows considerably. If rents rise in RVA faster than other metro markets and the two values converge, that is a signal (a "revealed preference") that the value proposition for RVA is changing away from being the affordable second choice towards a city worth moving to on its own merits relative to its competitors. "Relative to its competitors" is doing some work here: the gap could narrow because Richmond becomes much better (bigger, more restaurants, maybe a sports team, etc.) or DC (or Charlotte or Chicago or whatever) becomes much worse.*

 

*This assumes that Demand>Supply. If Demand<Supply, the rent gap could widen by either city becoming bigger and cheaper. But if Demand>Supply, the rent gap narrows if your city is becoming relatively more competitive either due to your merits or their problems.

 

 

Thanks @upzoningisgood!  As always, really GREAT stuff. You teach a master class (Ph.D. level, really) to us laymen every time you explain these metrics. VERY much appreciated!

A couple of thoughts and more questions:

1.)  Whether Avery Hall's logic can be repeated by other firms: 

One word for you: Hourigan.

While they're not dropping in as many TOTAL units, their building will be bigger/taller (20 residential levels - plus base, it will go 23 or 24 stories). I forget what they paid for the site (I don't think it wasn't anywhere close to what Avery Hall paid) - HOWEVER - Avery Hall's site is shovel-ready whereas Hourigan has the extra cost of demo'ing the silos, which can't be cheap.

1a.) -- Not expecting many/if any high-rises in the near future:

• Tom Papa - South Falls II - 14 stories - AND - Locks 7 (or 8 - I can't remember which it is) -- 13 stories,
• The Project Formerly Known as the Admiral -- 12 stories,
• Two buildings near Foushee and Grace are both planned for double digits (one might be as tall as 15 stories, according to RBS).

Now -admittedly, with the exception of South Falls II (which Papa has already started moving on, according to paperwork filed with the city and there are signs that this one is a go barring something going wrong (which in this economy, anything is possible), and the former Admiral (also paperwork indicates they're getting close to breaking ground) - those others are still "planned"/"proposed" - and no idea that there's any movement happening. Also - tallest of them is 14 stories - but 14 floors is 14 floors. Not a huge building - but it's not a 5:1 stick-box either.

No doubt, the bottom line is what the heck happens with the economy - inflation is coming down, but interest rates are still high. And at least one article (today's RBS mentioned the developers of The Icon in Scott's) mentioning that rents appear to be "stabilizing" and they aren't going up up up up like they were a year ago.

2.) Rent/cost/desirability/growth - RVA vs DC, Chicago, other cities and being competitive on its own merits:

I'm thinking we're gonna have to grow at a turbocharged/stratospheric level to even remotely become large enough to try to become competitive enough with those MUCH larger markets to move out of the "affordable second-choice" category to "perceived preference" or "primary" choice. No way in hell we will EVER see a major league sports team here and that's not limited only to the fact we're WAY too small for that. Restaurants - yeah, I could definitely see that. Entertainment - once we get the amphitheater up and running on the riverfront - yeah, I could see that. But RVA is kinda stuck in a circular dilemma: to be competitive (aside from the affordable alternative) enough to become a primary choice a la those cities you listed, we have to grow big enough and do it quickly enough to have comparable amenities to those other cities. However, we need those other amenities in order to grow a lot bigger and to do it faster - and we don't have those amenities. It's a chicken-and-egg thing - or for those of us who remember programing in BASIC - it's one of those nebulous "infinite go loops". How to we solve for this?

I know I'll get a lot of blowback on this - but I'm sorry - history and charm and character and architecture are nice, lovely, wonderful, well and good. But SOMETHING (maybe a zillion JOBS???) is causing other cities like Austin, the Carolina cities, Nashville, Portland, Indianapolis even (INDY, for cryin' out loud!!), among others to grow at 35, 40, 45% rates -- while we'll be dancing a jig IF we manage to eek out 10% growth (which might happen again this decade, please God!!) We have to deal with a still relatively small airport (all the cities I listed are getting a MINIMUM of about 14-15 million passengers per year vs RIC's 4.3 million) - and yeah, I know - location disadvantage. But that's a HUGE difference.

Do you see what I mean? HOW do we compete with those other cities "on our own merits" when it's night and day different in terms of what the RIC market vs, say, the Nashville market has to offer? What city (or metro) will be a bigger magnet?

And guys - before folks want to kick the soapbox out from under me and lecture me about how RVA is doing great and we're growing, blah blah blah - YES, I KNOW WE ARE!! THIS ISN'T A KVETCH!!! TAKE WHAT I AM SAYING IN CONTEXT RELATIVE TO THE DISCUSSION WITH @upzoningisgoodABOUT THE DEVELOPMENT METRICS THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. THANKS.

Good to know we're not going to price ourselves out. I just get the feeling we're going to have to settle (here we go again - settling) for being the "affordable alternative/second choice)" to really be competitive at least for the near future. And hey -- if that drives a big surge in population, I will not complain one bit! 

Maybe I'm wrong - and I pray I am. If the recent data coming out about how the Commonwealth's demographics appear to be (surprisingly) rather DRAMATICALLY shifting - maybe RVA (more the metro than city) IS starting to break through because at least for the first two years of this decade (three if you count 2020) we've become the state's HOT growth center. The data is there. It's actually happening!!

Either way - too much babbling I'm sure - but, @upzoningisgood, does this make sense? I'm raising it because you mentioned how Nashville has a "hook" ... and we know the Carolina cities have a "hook" - there's a REASON people - and LOTS of people - are climbing all over each other to be there. What's Richmond? I've yet to find it - and that's NO SLAM IN ANY WAY on RVA - because I DO sense that things are changing. We've got a LOT of amazing things going on. We're starting to pick up national recognition on a LOT of fronts. We're definitely on our way!! The rocket isn't stuck on the launch pad by any stretch. But what's our "hook"? What's gonna get us into that stratospheric orbit that so many other cities have gotten into that'll make people in HUGE numbers ready to walk over burning coals or crawl over shards of broken glass or trod through a live minefield to be here?

Edited February 2, 2023 by I miss RVA

[eandslee]

25 minutes ago, I miss RVA said:

Thanks @upzoningisgood!  As always, really GREAT stuff. You teach a master class (Ph.D. level, really) to us laymen every time you explain these metrics. VERY much appreciated!

A couple of thoughts and more questions:

1.)  Whether Avery Hall's logic can be repeated by other firms: 

One word for you: Hourigan.

While they're not dropping in as many TOTAL units, their building will be bigger/taller (20 residential levels - plus base, it will go 23 or 24 stories). I forget what they paid for the site (I don't think it wasn't anywhere close to what Avery Hall paid) - HOWEVER - Avery Hall's site is shovel-ready whereas Hourigan has the extra cost of demo'ing the silos, which can't be cheap.

1a.) -- Not expecting many/if any high-rises in the near future:

• Tom Papa - South Falls II - 14 stories - AND - Locks 7 (or 8 - I can't remember which it is) -- 13 stories,
• The Project Formerly Known as the Admiral -- 12 stories,
• Two buildings near Foushee and Grace are both planned for double digits (one might be as tall as 15 stories, according to RBS).

Now -admittedly, with the exception of South Falls II (which Papa has already started moving on, according to paperwork filed with the city and there are signs that this one is a go barring something going wrong (which in this economy, anything is possible), and the former Admiral (also paperwork indicates they're getting close to breaking ground) - those others are still "planned"/"proposed" - and no idea that there's any movement happening. Also - tallest of them is 14 stories - but 14 floors is 14 floors. Not a huge building - but it's not a 5:1 stick-box either.

No doubt, the bottom line is what the heck happens with the economy - inflation is coming down, but interest rates are still high. And at least one article (today's RBS mentioned the developers of The Icon in Scott's) mentioning that rents appear to be "stabilizing" and they aren't going up up up up like they were a year ago.

2.) Rent/cost/desirability/growth - RVA vs DC, Chicago, other cities and being competitive on its own merits:

I'm thinking we're gonna have to grow at a turbocharged/stratospheric level to even remotely become large enough to try to become competitive enough with those MUCH larger markets to move out of the "affordable second-choice" category to "perceived preference" or "primary" choice. No way in hell we will EVER see a major league sports team here and that's not limited only to the fact we're WAY too small for that. Restaurants - yeah, I could definitely see that. Entertainment - once we get the amphitheater up and running on the riverfront - yeah, I could see that. But RVA is kinda stuck in a circular dilemma: to be competitive (aside from the affordable alternative) enough to become a primary choice a la those cities you listed, we have to grow big enough and do it quickly enough to have comparable amenities to those other cities. However, we need those other amenities in order to grow a lot bigger and to do it faster - and we don't have those amenities.

I know I'll get a lot of blowback on this - but I'm sorry - history and charm and character and architecture are nice, lovely, wonderful, well and good. But SOMETHING (maybe a zillion JOBS???) is causing other cities like Austin, the Carolina cities, Nashville, Portland, Indianapolis even (INDY, for cryin' out loud!!), among others to grow at 35, 40, 45% rates -- while we'll be dancing a jig IF we manage to eek out 10% growth (which might happen again this decade, please God!!) We have to deal with a still relatively small airport (all the cities I listed are getting a MINIMUM of about 14-15 million passengers per year vs RIC's 4.3 million) - and yeah, I know - location disadvantage. But that's a HUGE difference.

Do you see what I mean? HOW do we compete with those other cities "on our own merits" when it's night and day different in terms of what the RIC market vs, say, the Nashville market has to offer? What city (or metro) will be a bigger magnet?

And guys - before folks want to kick the soapbox out from under me and lecture me about how RVA is doing great and we're growing, blah blah blah - YES, I KNOW WE ARE!! THIS ISN'T A KVETCH!!! TAKE WHAT I AM SAYING IN CONTEXT RELATIVE TO THE DISCUSSION WITH @upzoningisgoodABOUT THE DEVELOPMENT METRICS THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. THANKS.

Good to know we're not going to price ourselves out. I just get the feeling we're going to have to settle (here we go again - settling) for being the "affordable alternative/second choice)" to really be competitive at least for the near future. And hey -- if that drives a big surge in population, I will not complain one bit! 

Maybe I'm wrong - and I pray I am. If the recent data coming out about how the Commonwealth's demographics appear to be (surprisingly) rather DRAMATICALLY shifting - maybe RVA (more the metro than city) IS starting to break through because at least for the first two years of this decade (three if you count 2020) we've become the HOT growth center. The data is there.

Either way - too much babbling I'm sure - but, @upzoningisgood, does this make sense? I'm raising it because you mentioned how Nashville has a "hook" ... and we know the Carolina cities have a "hook" - there's a REASON people - and LOTS of people - are climbing all over each other to be there. What's Richmond? I've yet to find it - and that's NO SLAM IN ANY WAY on RVA - because I DO sense that things are changing. We've got a LOT of amazing things going on. We're starting to pick up national recognition on a LOT of fronts. We're definitely on our way!! The rocket isn't stuck on the launch pad by any stretch. But what's our "hook"? What's gonna get us into that stratospheric orbit that so many other cities have gotten into that'll make people walk over burning coals or crawl over broken glass or trod through a live minefield to be here?

Regarding your last paragraph:  I think it comes down to identity…what is Richmond’s identity?  I don’t think it has much of one and if there is one, it’s definitely not nationally known. Richmond needs to be known for something positive, popular, and one which will draw people here.  There just isn’t anything that we are known for other than…well, the Confederate Capital, which is a terrible thing to be known for (VERY unpopular).  How do we shake that identity and replace it with something much better. I think it is happening slowly, but we are still not there yet.  We could be known for:

Amazing food (but what specifically?)

Outdoor activity Mecca

Our arts scene

Maybe (a little bit)…our museums

But what else?  Maybe it’s just too late, but I’m struggling to think of anything else. 

[I miss RVA]

29 minutes ago, eandslee said:

Regarding your last paragraph:  I think it comes down to identity…what is Richmond’s identity?  I don’t think it has much of one and if there is one, it’s definitely not nationally known. Richmond needs to be known for something positive, popular, and one which will draw people here.  There just isn’t anything that we are known for other than…well, the Confederate Capital, which is a terrible thing to be known for (VERY unpopular).  How do we shake that identity and replace it with something much better. I think it is happening slowly, but we are still not there yet.  We could be known for:

Amazing food (but what specifically?)

Outdoor activity Mecca

Our arts scene

Maybe (a little bit)…our museums

But what else?  Maybe it’s just too late, but I’m struggling to think of anything else. 

You hit the nail on the head, @eandslee-- RVA's identity MUST be centered on something other than being the former Capital of the Confederacy, which for those of us born and raised in River City - it's beaten into our heads from the time we're old enough to sit up in the crib. But I think we HAVE been shedding it to some extent this century. 

RVA food: do we HAVE a specific cuisine any more? It used to be "Southern" cuisine (but then again, a LOT of southern cities had/have that). Mind you - I think RVA's food SCENE is what's really up and coming, to the point that Guy Fieri has featured Richmond restaurants on no fewer than 11 episodes of his iconic series "Diners, Drive-Ins and Dives". He absolutely LOVES LOVES LOVES LOVES Richmond and LOVES coming here.  Chef Ramsay came to Richmond just before the pandemic for a fantastic episode of "24 Hours to Hell and Back." And truTV selected Richmond as one of their "101 Places to Party Before You Die" and featured RVA on an episode last summer. They hit up a TON of places all over town, including a lot of restaurants. 

So while I can't necessarily point to a specific cuisine, I can honestly say that the food/beverage scene in RVA has NEVER been better and NEVER been hotter and it's definitely drawing attention from folks from all over.

Arts scene is good - but do we shine relative to D.C. being just two hours away? The museums - now there's one area where we definitely punch WAY above our weight. But people don't necessarily MOVE TO CITIES for museums. They TRAVEL to cities for museums - and yes, that can lead to relocations. It helps though - and it's a GIANORMOUS asset that a LOT of other cities our size - and even larger - can't even remotely touch.

Outdoorsy stuff is really good - and that CAN attract residents. Yes, Virginia, "the ruvvah" is a diamond in our crown of jewels, to be sure.

All great stuff. But is that going to make people in HUGE numbers ready to walk over burning coals or crawl over shards of broken glass or trod through a live minefield to be here? Is that going to grow us by 35% in a 10-year period? From where we are now (roughly 233K) -- to get to where the city forecasts we have the POTENTIAL to reach by the 2037 tricentennial (340K) we have to grow by about 40% give or take (adding 107K in 15 years - that's a tough nut to crack at the pace we've been going - to get there, we need to step up our game!) What's going to get us there? What's the "hook" that @upzoningisgoodhas mentioned that cities like Nashville or Austin -- or places like Portland or even Indianapolis have?  And I frankly don't care one iota about those other places. I want to know - what's OUR "hook?"

 

Edited February 2, 2023 by I miss RVA

[Flood Zone]

I can only speak anecdotally, of course, but in my experience Richmond is known -- on a positive level -- for (1) historical markers, e.g., St. John's Church (everyone is taught the "Give me liberty or give me death" speech), and (2) a strong  and emerging craft beer and foodie scene. Other things, such as VMFA, are also very notable.

11 hours ago, I miss RVA said:

All great stuff. But is that going to make people in HUGE numbers ready to walk over burning coals or crawl over shards of broken glass or trod through a live minefield to be here? Is that going to grow us by 35% in a 10-year period? From where we are now (roughly 233K) -- to get to where the city forecasts we have the POTENTIAL to reach by the 2037 tricentennial (340K) we have to grow by about 40% give or take (adding 107K in 15 years - that's a tough nut to crack at the pace we've been going - to get there, we need to step up our game!) What's going to get us there?

Not to put too fine a point on it, but that forecast is rather unreasonable. I think the city and the metro area will continue to grow at a pretty decent clip because we've got some good things to offer,* because area leaders appear more committed than ever to growing the region, and because populations mostly everywhere continue to grow.

That said, while I'm neither a builder nor an urban planner, I have taken away lessons from friends who live in Texas and Sun Belt areas. And a primary driver in those locations is cheap, available land with stewards who are looking to develop it. (As for me, as much as I like cool highway designs and 3-digit interstates, I'm not a fan.)   

* Former federal employee here. That RVA is part of the DC region for COLA purposes is awesome. (Or at least was....haven't been a federal employee for 15 years.)

Edited February 2, 2023 by Flood Zone

[wrldcoupe4]

I'm not sure any of this matters for the reasons that you guys want it to matter. I'm pretty sure GRP has studied this stuff and the reality is that most business leaders nationally don't have a negative view of Richmond, but they don't really have an opinion at all. The reality is Richmond is a great quality of life (we check a lot of boxes in that regard). If you want population migration, you need business investment and job creation. Why do businesses pick locations? How do we stack up? Business climate, access, talent depth, etc. How do we improve in that regard?

[Rooster]

Great food, craft beer, arts (both "street level" and museums), and local music scene are big plusses, though they could happen anywhere. The natural beauty - most specifically the world class river - is part of what's unique to Richmond, so thats a big thing to lean into. But whats truly unique is the sense of place that comes from history and archtitecture - you cant just build >100 year old neighborhoods. I think thats got to be part of Richmonds future - weve got the potential to grow into something comparable to some European capitols if we can develop in a way that retains as much as we can (of the good stuff anyway) and avoid the bland "sameness" of lots of midsize cities.

Im a huge Richmond booster and would like to see us grow as much as any of you - but only if we can retain what makes Richmond such an awesome unique place. Quality of life! Bigger and better often go together but they arent the same thing...

[Icetera]

20 hours ago, skinsfan said:

https://www.loopnet.com/Listing/10019-Chamberlayne-Rd-Mechanicsville-VA/23446615/

 

I can definitely see Wegmans building their new store here in this upcoming development, especially with Wegmans building their local distribution center in Hanover. 

Wow, I spent NYE 2015 in that house and friends were booted out later that year for development.  I did not realize that the development still has not occurred, never-mind that the house is still standing.

[I miss RVA]

5 hours ago, Rooster said:

Great food, craft beer, arts (both "street level" and museums), and local music scene are big plusses, though they could happen anywhere. The natural beauty - most specifically the world class river - is part of what's unique to Richmond, so thats a big thing to lean into. But whats truly unique is the sense of place that comes from history and archtitecture - you cant just build >100 year old neighborhoods. I think thats got to be part of Richmonds future - weve got the potential to grow into something comparable to some European capitols if we can develop in a way that retains as much as we can (of the good stuff anyway) and avoid the bland "sameness" of lots of midsize cities.

Im a huge Richmond booster and would like to see us grow as much as any of you - but only if we can retain what makes Richmond such an awesome unique place. Quality of life! Bigger and better often go together but they arent the same thing...

We won't lose the architecture or the old legacy neighborhoods. Those are well established and aren't going anywhere - if anything, they'll be enhanced by new development and a bigger, better Richmond. 

I think an even better comparison for what RVA could grow to be like would be Boston and Philadelphia. BOTH cities retain the physical atmosphere of century-plus-old legacy neighborhoods and architecture you find attractive (in other words, they have a "sense of place" that is rooted in history and architecture - it's not a quality unique or exclusive to Richmond by any means) - and yet they also have MASSIVELY developed downtowns with ample height - and have tremendous city-wide density. Both those cities are prime examples of how old and new can merge to form something truly epic. I don't view it as an "either-or" or a "zero-sum" equation. It goes back to the argument over W. Broad Street zoning. A 25-story- or even a 50-story - building two blocks NORTH of Broad Street does not in any way diminish the loveliness of the Fan - it has NO "negative" impact to all those blocks of rowhouses SOUTH of Broad. History and architecture are only part of Richmond's story as a city. We absolutely cannot hinge our entire future exclusively on it and we absolutely cannot constrain, scale back, truncate or mold/shape new development in total deference to the old. That simply won't work.

THAT said - fear not, my friend - we won't lose the 100-year-old neighborhoods. Those, we will always have with us because they absolutely ARE integral to the fabric of the city - just like their counterparts are in Boston and Philly. But just don't exclude the new and the big and the bold for the sake of a false narrative about how new/big/bold somehow "diminishes" the old and small. It doesn't. If anything, it enhances it. 

Edited February 2, 2023 by I miss RVA

[whw53]

Earnings call this week revealed disappointing news regarding Amazon brick & mortar. 

https://www.businessinsider.com/amazon-fresh-amazon-go-closures-why-didnt-grocery-work-2023-2?amp

[plain]

12 minutes ago, whw53 said:

Earnings call this week revealed disappointing news regarding Amazon brick & mortar. 

https://www.businessinsider.com/amazon-fresh-amazon-go-closures-why-didnt-grocery-work-2023-2?amp

I'm not surprised by this at all. What Amazon is failing to realize is when it comes to groceries, people are trying to save money, not time. I've been seeing it for the past year or so now: most of the bigger major grocery stores have been a little less crowded than they used to be, while both Aldi and Lidl have been the busiest they've I've ever seen. Amazon has some good concepts when it comes to their stores, but right now people are basically looking for more bang for their buck. That article is spot on. While I would love to have another grocer to add to our already large list, Amazon Fresh is not exactly a home run.

[ancientcarpenter]

On 2/4/2023 at 11:52 AM, plain said:

I'm not surprised by this at all. What Amazon is failing to realize is when it comes to groceries, people are trying to save money, not time. I've been seeing it for the past year or so now: most of the bigger major grocery stores have been a little less crowded than they used to be, while both Aldi and Lidl have been the busiest they've I've ever seen. Amazon has some good concepts when it comes to their stores, but right now people are basically looking for more bang for their buck. That article is spot on. While I would love to have another grocer to add to our already large list, Amazon Fresh is not exactly a home run.

My friends who want to save time were using Amazon/Whole Foods' delivery services. I never did because it wasn't worth it for my budget...and I actually like going to the store. 
Kroger has started a $100/year service to delivery food within two hours to me (I live in fan area). Even I signed up for that being a young family. Whole Foods is getting competition and the competition is much cheaper in my view.