Jump to content

Norfolk Development 2


Recommended Posts

So I decided to look up a few trademarks, just for fun. Something caught my eye.

http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4804:6de9yq.8.1

The Norfolk Neptunes, filed by PW Branding, which I’m guessing is Pharrell Williams, one half of the music duo The Neptunes. My first thought is they’re indeed putting an NBA plan together, but I’m leaning more towards something involving the Professional Collegiate League, which plans to challenge the NCAA. Norfolk and Richmond are getting teams, and the DC and Carolina team names were recently unveiled. 

https://thepcleague.com

EDIT: the search expired, but this was the result.

Screen Shot 2021-01-26 at 9.01.04 AM.png

Edited by BFG
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

This project has updated renderings and is on the agenda for discussion at the Dec. 7th ARB meeting. View the entire agenda at the following link: http://norfolkcityva.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?

I apologize if I missed this somewhere else. But an application to the architectural review board was submitted for 611-615 35th Street to renovate the building into mixed use. This plan would take it

DEVELOPMENT UPDATES:   Freemason civic league meeting tonight w/special guests  ...a councilwoman and a member of the city manager's office-- Gateway tower is a "go" with a big fish landed .

Posted Images

On second thought...one of the other teams is the Carolina Flight. This is their trademark application. Another team, the DC Stealth, shows the same owner. Looking at the trademark for the Neptunes, it was filed January 8, a day or two after the NBA said it's looking to expand. I think VA is putting its hat in the ring, or getting ready for when the league is ready.

Icetera posted on the RVA forum that the league might play its games in VB this summer, in a "bubble" format similar to Orlando.

Screen Shot 2021-01-26 at 5.02.18 PM.png

Edited by BFG
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/26/2021 at 2:06 PM, BFG said:

On second thought...one of the other teams is the Carolina Flight. This is their trademark application. Another team, the DC Stealth, shows the same owner. Looking at the trademark for the Neptunes, it was filed January 8, a day or two after the NBA said it's looking to expand. I think VA is putting its hat in the ring, or getting ready for when the league is ready.

Icetera posted on the RVA forum that the league might play its games in VB this summer, in a "bubble" format similar to Orlando.

Screen Shot 2021-01-26 at 5.02.18 PM.png

 

I just don't see that happening at all.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Virginia City said:

 

I just don't see that happening at all.

You do not see the location happening or do not see the league happening?  For the first year, the location makes sense as the league is to be headquartered out of Richmond.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Icetera said:

You do not see the location happening or do not see the league happening?  For the first year, the location makes sense as the league is to be headquartered out of Richmond.

 

Nope, I'm dumb, my apologies.  @BFG had just mentioned about a possible NBA team and then next line talked about the league doing a bubble like in Orlando (something the NBA did last season). I assumed he was still taking about the NBA and them doing a bubble in Virginia Beach and that sounded illogical.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
22 minutes ago, Asdfjkl; said:

The Downtown Plan 2030

Planning for the various sections of Downtown. Focus is on resiliency, Fort Norfolk, MacArthur Center, St. Paul’s, and Harbor Park. Interesting exclusion of the new CHKD tower.

 

The reason for the exclusion is because this plan came out years ago, before CHKD was even a thought. The plans are typically created in 10, 20, and 30 year increments and are updated multiple times. I think this plan came out in 2010 but was updated a few years back when River Tower was proposed. Not sure why they’re sending it out again today. I’ve looked at it, but can’t figure out what changed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

L insert shows River Tower and EVMS. I know we’ve posted this here before because I remember arguing with some over the realtivey low rise building they have fronting Brambleton when I thought it should be something tall and signature.

Link to post
Share on other sites

spacer.png

 

Thought this was interesting.  I had seen renderings of a potential expansion of the glass blowing center, but haven't seen anything else about expansion of the museum itself.  I thought the area that now has parking to the left was owned by EVMS though?  And it looks like the parcel where the expanded glass blowing studio would go is where the current Norfolk Red Cross is.  Not sure if that all is still in the cards.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Minimum 12-stories for tower on third anchor site, that’s new. First time I’ve ever seen them set a floor on building height. More of this please.

 

489E230B-3E21-4C97-9378-83E9633560A8.jpeg

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, BFG said:

Leave it to the Pilot to sensationalize this and make it seem like demolition is the only option. 

https://www.pilotonline.com/business/consumer/vp-bz-macarthur-center-downtown-20210305-b65fhxqbcjg63da6lvddtmvtxu-story.html

It might not be the only option, but it is the best options. This is a prime opportunity to reimagine Norfolk in the middle of downtown. You can't leave it non-contiguous. Like St Pauls, reestablishing the grid is the single most important thing Norfolk can do here.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree it makes the most sense, and creates the perfect gateway to SPQ. It’s just that I think the Pilot kinda put the cart before the horse here. Lotta people aren’t gonna read past the headline. 

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

It might not be the only option, but it is the best options. This is a prime opportunity to reimagine Norfolk in the middle of downtown. You can't leave it non-contiguous. Like St Pauls, reestablishing the grid is the single most important thing Norfolk can do here.

I disagree. I think the street grid can be restored (in part ) without razing 4,000 valuable parking spaces. I believe keeping those parking decks is key to attracting residential and office, and creating a reasonable retail mix. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, NFKjeff said:

I disagree. I think the street grid can be restored (in part ) without razing 4,000 valuable parking spaces. I believe keeping those parking decks is key to attracting residential and office, and creating a reasonable retail mix. 

They razed the large parking garage on the site of the Wells Fargo tower.

If the McArthur garage is an economic catalyst, it can be the last piece to be torn down, but it shouldn't be saved at the expense of connectivity and restoration of Norfolk's core.

On 3/2/2021 at 11:47 PM, Arctic_Tern said:

spacer.png

 

Thought this was interesting.  I had seen renderings of a potential expansion of the glass blowing center, but haven't seen anything else about expansion of the museum itself.  I thought the area that now has parking to the left was owned by EVMS though?  And it looks like the parcel where the expanded glass blowing studio would go is where the current Norfolk Red Cross is.  Not sure if that all is still in the cards.

I always thought Norfolk needed their version of a mall (a la Washington DC) connecting the museum to the opera house. This isn't quite what I had in mind, but hopefully it's a step towards a plan to link 2 of the most architecturally significant structures in Norfolk with a beautiful public space.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Option 2 for the mall makes the most sense, it preserves the parking garages and potentially the frame of parts of the mall structure to allow for renovations rather than building new. This would help create a retail street and an urban meetup style place for downtown.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Option 2 is what I see happening most likely. The City is going to have a ton of property they're trying to develop at the same time (MacArthur, SPQ, Harbor Park, Fort Norfolk, Military Circle) so there probably isn't going to be as much pent up demand for a ground-up rebuild of the MacArthur space. Since the garages have already been around for some time I think Option 2 brings in a modest reconnection of the downtown space, and if planned with forethought could pave the way for future redevelopment after around 10-20 years.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

It’s probably a good thing that the ultimate fate of the malls ownership may take awhile to be settled. I think the fact that the city owns the land helps their cause. In the mean time a lot of thought and study needs to go into which plan they choose. 
 

Right now I am most in favor of option 2. Coming out of the pandemic we have no real idea how the office market is going to respond. If the city chose to tear the entire structure down without considering all of the options we could end up with another three decades of surface parking.  I feel like the existing structure gives them a lot of leverage to help entice new development that a barren lot would not offer. I think a mix of residential and retail (dining, entertainment, grocery, etc.) would be ideal, and if office space could be supported as well why not. 
 

Maybe the city should hold a charette open to those living in downtown areas to gauge what types of services and amenities they would support which at the same time would not be a direct threat to existing downtown businesses.

Edited by NFKjeff
add clarity
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, urbanlife said:

Option 2 for the mall makes the most sense, it preserves the parking garages and potentially the frame of parts of the mall structure to allow for renovations rather than building new. This would help create a retail street and an urban meetup style place for downtown.

Agreed. And number three is likely too costly in the end and unlikely to draw substantial redevelopment $$$$ within an acceptable timeframe. Let’s not throw out the baby with the bathwater. 

4 hours ago, NFKjeff said:

It’s probably a good thing that the ultimate fate of the malls ownership may take awhile to be settled. I think the fact that the city owns the land helps their cause. In the mean time a lot of thought and study needs to go into which plan they choose. 
 

Right now I am most in favor of option 2. Coming out of the pandemic we have no real idea how the office market is going to respond. If the city chose to tear the entire structure down without considering all of the options we could end up with another three decades of surface parking.  I feel like the existing structure gives them a lot of leverage to help entice new development that a barren lot would not offer. I think a mix of residential and retail (dining, entertainment, grocery, etc.) would be ideal, and if office space could be supported as well why not. 
 

Maybe the city should hold a charette open to those living in downtown areas to gauge what types of services and amenities they would support which at the same time would not be a direct threat to existing downtown businesses.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think the city only owns Nordstrom. 

Edited by baobabs727
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, NFKjeff said:

It’s probably a good thing that the ultimate fate of the malls ownership may take awhile to be settled. I think the fact that the city owns the land helps their cause. In the mean time a lot of thought and study needs to go into which plan they choose. 
 

Right now I am most in favor of option 2. Coming out of the pandemic we have no real idea how the office market is going to respond. If the city chose to tear the entire structure down without considering all of the options we could end up with another three decades of surface parking.  I feel like the existing structure gives them a lot of leverage to help entice new development that a barren lot would not offer. I think a mix of residential and retail (dining, entertainment, grocery, etc.) would be ideal, and if office space could be supported as well why not. 
 

Maybe the city should hold a charette open to those living in downtown areas to gauge what types of services and amenities they would support which at the same time would not be a direct threat to existing downtown businesses.

Agreed. Unfortunately, nothing will materialize as quickly as we’d like. Your timeframe seems realistic, if slightly optimistic. Downtown Norfolk is not as robust or as vibrant as it has been in the past—in any sector. Downtown Norfolk has a poor reputation for retail sales and an average one for dining and entertainment. Couple all of that with the deteriorating/collapsing brick and mortar retail landscape everywhere, the perpetual lack of outside/national deep pocketed investments in this town and truly anemic local  job growth, and it’s going to be a long, long haul. I say this with a heavy heart ...and a clear head. 

Edited by baobabs727
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Depends on how quickly the city can gain leverage or control on the parcel. Since MacArthur mall was used as collateral, it could very well be heading to the bank very soon, and I think the City would be quick to try and grab it. The fact that the City owns the land probably will dissuade a lot of people trying to grab it for a quick buck since the City probably has a lot of control on what can and can't happen with the property. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.