Jump to content

State Senate kills Roanoke bill about Victory Stadium


weill

Recommended Posts


  • Replies 108
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I think you can still have great events by just having a stage with a large field behind it. In Richmond, Innsbrook After Hours is just a stage in a field, but it attracts great musical acts thoughout the year. Similarly, Brown's Island has some big name music acts throughout the warm months on just a portable stage.

All Roanoke needs to do to have a great venue at this site is to create a decent sized stage and maintain a large field in front of it. This should be a no-brainer if this is to be Roanoke's Central Park. The field can be used for all sorts of other purposes when concerts aren't going on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also hope a stage with a multipurpose field in front of it is part of what they do. That really wouldn't cost that much if they kept it simple. To me, that should be a no brainer part of the plan. On closer look at the plans, I am a little skeptical about the whitewater part. I like the incorporation of water, but I think the novelty of kayaking a 100-200 yard stretch of whitewater would wear off quickly. I would actually also axe the gondola, though I know that might be a really popular idea. With those two things (whitewater and gondola) it begins to feel more like a theme park than a beautiful greenspace escape in the heart of the city in the mold of Central Park, NY or Lincoln Park, Chicago. I'd rather see the paln of the light rail down Jefferson connect with a tram that goes up the pathway for the old tram come to fruition. They talk about wanting to make sure this connects with downtown, well I think the light rail would do just that and hopefully be a catalyst for further development along Jefferson making it an extended downtown corridor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You might be right about the whitewater. It might be overly expensive for little more than an underused novelty. I really think we need much more detail about this proposal before we can fully judge any specific part of it. As far as the gondola, I agree that there should be a nexus with a trolley or light rail line coming from downtown. As for gondola vs. tram, I don't think one is necessarily better than the other. Its possible that the gondola could be cheaper and have less right of way issues, since it could simply pass over existing roads/buildings and other infrastructure without disturbing them. In any case, a transit system to the top of Mill Mtn should use the existing right of way (occupied by power lines) that extends from just south of the hospital. Givin the location of mill mt. southeast of the site, I'd like to see an explanation from the consultant of why the northwest corner of the property was selected for the gondola terminus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're probably right, but it shouldn't. Good public projects cost a lot of money. Many criticized Mayor Daley in Chicago for the cost of Millenium Park which was over 400 million but now most everyone is singing it's praises for the tourism, development and general civic pride that have developed. In the long run it will make money for the city and Daley knew this.

Also, drop the water park and apparently you save 9 million so.... there are options. I hope it does not revert to simply becoming ballfields.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree 100%, bmedguy. I noticed that in the latest renderings, the gondola wasn't on the plan. There really needs to be access to Mill Mtn by tram, gondola, diagonal elevator or some other means. I sincerely hope that this vision stays alive, whether it is part of the master plan for the park or just a separate project. Ditto for the trolley or light rail from Downtown.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 6 months later...

Council has voted to request proposals for an ampitheater at the former victory stadium site instead of at Elmwood Park. I guess what annoys me is that council hires consultants and then ignores their advice. I'm not against a site near the river, I just think the council is wasting their money. And also, they were considering the same design for both sites. In my opinion, Elmwood would be much better for a 7000 seat, 2500+/- under a roof facility, while the riverside location would be a good spot to put a stage, elevated above the floodplain, with a large field (which could be left unaltered in the floodplain) for events similar to Brown's Island and Innsbrook in Richmond. Putting tiered, permanant seating near the river means either building some of the facility below the floodplain or creating large berms at the edge, thus limiting any overflow capacity. It would be much cheaper and easier to just build a nice stage facility there. There's plenty of open space there to handle crowds of 40,000+. Why ruin that with a venue that can accomodate 7000 tops?

In reality, Roanoke should have both the Elmwood and the Riverside facitities. Please council, go to Richmond and see what they do on Brown's Island!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • 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.