Jump to content

St. Paul's Quadrant (Phase 1-Under Construction)


Aughie

Recommended Posts

St. Pauls quadrant update. Presentation begins 1hr 7min in.

I would say interesting, but not for the reasons of presentation. I was actually surprised at what Burfoot had to say about the people and plan. The types of housing, etc...I think that was needed to be said. Also Fraim step up and pointed out some historic logic that I thought would have never been said as well.

Overall, I hate it, yes it is better than what is there, but I still hate it for the growth of Norfolk. Ideally, this again, landlocks Norfolk urban core to North Brambleton area which is a bad idea given the 3 mass areas for redevelopment. I wish Norfolk would broaden their take on it, but it seems as though only a couple are invested and the others are saying Yah or nay.

Maybe my personal issue is the lack of supervision and incompatiable policies of NHRA. What I mean is this, they have created a plan based off best case scenarios for the citizens who live there when this is highly not the case. Why should any residents be allowed to have a voice in anything, I'm sure anyone who owns property or businesses would say the say thing. It takes an amount of risk to live a regular life, and many of these residents turned there backs on opportunities that would have given them a better life. I think government is great for helping people like this, I just disagree with their feelings having to do anything with the redevelopment, they aren't OWED anything. The fact remains, if Norfolk does not grow, its less opportunity for all no matter what your stake is. Burfoot said it best, you want it to be a place of "CHOICE" living, you can't do that when you have terrible public policies (NHRA) and skewed living conditions. You just can not do that and think it will be successful. In all of this, if you choose to do this, you have to keep people honest, the way you do that is changing public policy to support that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


I would say interesting, but not for the reasons of presentation. I was actually surprised at what Burfoot had to say about the people and plan. The types of housing, etc...I think that was needed to be said. Also Fraim step up and pointed out some historic logic that I thought would have never been said as well.

Overall, I hate it, yes it is better than what is there, but I still hate it for the growth of Norfolk. Ideally, this again, landlocks Norfolk urban core to North Brambleton area which is a bad idea given the 3 mass areas for redevelopment. I wish Norfolk would broaden their take on it, but it seems as though only a couple are invested and the others are saying Yah or nay.

Maybe my personal issue is the lack of supervision and incompatiable policies of NHRA. What I mean is this, they have created a plan based off best case scenarios for the citizens who live there when this is highly not the case. Why should any residents be allowed to have a voice in anything, I'm sure anyone who owns property or businesses would say the say thing. It takes an amount of risk to live a regular life, and many of these residents turned there backs on opportunities that would have given them a better life. I think government is great for helping people like this, I just disagree with their feelings having to do anything with the redevelopment, they aren't OWED anything. The fact remains, if Norfolk does not grow, its less opportunity for all no matter what your stake is. Burfoot said it best, you want it to be a place of "CHOICE" living, you can't do that when you have terrible public policies (NHRA) and skewed living conditions. You just can not do that and think it will be successful. In all of this, if you choose to do this, you have to keep people honest, the way you do that is changing public policy to support that.

It's pretty disappointing to hear this is a 30 year vision. I really hope it doesn't take that long to get funding and implement this vision. I don't know the intricacies of bureaucracy but how many community presentations, how many board presentations do we need until they say, lets improve the roads, and then eventually development will come.

This "vision" they showed has been around for years now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's pretty disappointing to hear this is a 30 year vision. I really hope it doesn't take that long to get funding and implement this vision. I don't know the intricacies of bureaucracy but how many community presentations, how many board presentations do we need until they say, lets improve the roads, and then eventually development will come.

This "vision" they showed has been around for years now.

The entire vision is 30 years, that means to completion. The time they gave for the start of erecting new housing and bulldozing old was 2-5 years from now. You're gonna see stuff start happening a lot sooner than 30 years from now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, this is one of those projects I am no longer holding my breath for. Norfolk doesn't seem to be able to think outside of the box and understand that they can actually expand their downtown boundaries. It would be nice to see Norfolk actually put people in office that have real vision.

Brikkman, I understand your frustration, but I think you are focusing it on the wrong people. The people that live there are not the bad guys in all of this, they are just the ones stuck in the middle. If the city doesn't offer a viable alternative, then you force people out of their homes and into the streets, but if no program is put into place to help people out of poverty, then why would they want to get off a system that is helping them survive?

Edited by urbanlife
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, this is one of those projects I am no longer holding my breath for. Norfolk doesn't seem to be able to think outside of the box and understand that they can actually expand their downtown boundaries. It would be nice to see Norfolk actually put people in office that have real vision.

Brikkman, I understand your frustration, but I think you are focusing it on the wrong people. The people that live there are not the bad guys in all of this, they are just the ones stuck in the middle. If the city doesn't offer a viable alternative, then you force people out of their homes and into the streets, but if no program is put into place to help people out of poverty, then why would they want to get off a system that is helping them survive?

What I found most annoying by that presentation is was when the Vice Mayor Anthony Burfoot said something to the extent of "there are some people in these homes who have a good job and a good credit rating who will be viable home buyers and will want to come back."

What are they doing in Tidewater Gardens with a good job and good credit rating to boot with the ability to get a mortgage and buy a home? With all the foreclosures and the busted real estate bubble, these people should be out of there NOW purchasing their first home.

He inadvertently showed how busted the system really is. This is among the many reasons I found the whole presentation frustrating.

There also was an interesting tidbit about the entrance ramp being used to segregate that area when it was built which I found very interesting. I know Fraim said they were looking into possibilities of removing it at some point but the presenter (head of city planning?) said it probably wasn't possible.

At least these guys recognize the need to create an urbane district, even if they are going to let it get hampered by history, bureaucracy, and the perceived need for wealth distribution.

I would also like to know how Fraim's "Phase Plan" would work exactly. They would tear down small parecels of Tidewater Gardens at a time, move the residents across the street to newer projects. Then, build only on the area where they tore down some of TG, and then have those people move back into the area. How are they going to bring in any NEW wealth and NEW residents.

"Hello possibly buyer. Come to this new plot of land we've developed. It's surrounded on 3 sides by Tidewater Gardens, and your new neighbors are former residents of Tidewater Gardens, an area you have historically thought to be dangerous...Wait, don't leave, we built new housing, so who your neighbor is shouldn't matter right????"

Edited by mistermetaj
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I found most annoying by that presentation is was when the Vice Mayor Anthony Burfoot said something to the extent of "there are some people in these homes who have a good job and a good credit rating who will be viable home buyers and will want to come back."

What are they doing in Tidewater Gardens with a good job and good credit rating to boot with the ability to get a mortgage and buy a home? With all the foreclosures and the busted real estate bubble, these people should be out of there NOW purchasing their first home.

He inadvertently showed how busted the system really is. This is among the many reasons I found the whole presentation frustrating.

There also was an interesting tidbit about the entrance ramp being used to segregate that area when it was built which I found very interesting. I know Fraim said they were looking into possibilities of removing it at some point but the presenter (head of city planning?) said it probably wasn't possible.

At least these guys recognize the need to create an urbane district, even if they are going to let it get hampered by history, bureaucracy, and the perceived need for wealth distribution.

I would also like to know how Fraim's "Phase Plan" would work exactly. They would tear down small parecels of Tidewater Gardens at a time, move the residents across the street to newer projects. Then, build only on the area where they tore down some of TG, and then have those people move back into the area. How are they going to bring in any NEW wealth and NEW residents.

"Hello possibly buyer. Come to this new plot of land we've developed. It's surrounded on 3 sides by Tidewater Gardens, and your new neighbors are former residents of Tidewater Gardens, an area you have historically thought to be dangerous...Wait, don't leave, we built new housing, so who your neighbor is shouldn't matter right????"

I know you and I keep going in crcles about this one, but I will give it another go. I still think you are blaming the wrong people. Just because someone has a "good job" and "good credit" doesn't mean they are able to buy or able to afford much more in rent than they are paying there. You are basing your argument and frustrations with this project off of a generalized statement. What if those people do not have the money to put down for buying a place, maybe they can only qualify for half of what any asking price is, maybe they watched the housing market collapse and saw what is happening to people who bought more than they could afford.

There is a number of varitables in play, the big one is that there isn't a system set up to help people out of poverty, just one that helps them when they are deep into it. I have always thought there needs to be a step system in place that slowly helps people get to middle class without screwing them over when they are no longer classified as "poverty." Which for that, I blame the ones in charge of our system, not the people that are stuck in it.

As for future developments, we are talking about taking a very suburban, sprawling complex and reducing it to a more dense area that would allow for more people per mile. So lets say the city builds a four story building on the site of where they tore down a number of units, out of those people that moved out, a third move back in, as well as some poor elderly, then a developer builds 3 new 4-6 story buildings that have market rate units and maybe some below market rate units to make the place affordable to those that can afford to pay more to live downtown, but can't afford market rate. After years of doing this, the area slowly develops a healthy urban neighborhood and replaces a heavily ghetto area that had limited access into it.

This all could happen, but it would require the city to actually make some bold moves. Personally I think the city should look at this project as clearing it in large sections, divide the site up into 4-6 phases, tear down everything in that phase, then do a quick rebuild of new buildings and infrastructure, the better connected to downtown, the better. Possibly expand the NET bus (if that is even still running) to the new area to help access, as well as promoting it as new downtown living.

Then from there, it would be important for the city to attract a real grocery store, a full size one that is apart of a mix use building that provides parking and additional space above that. Also, Norfolk has a low office vacancy rate if I am correct, which would make for a great office/retail/apartment complex for market rate closest to the church through a public/private partnership. Which in doing this would be a great time to add a better connection to the area, possibly even restructuring the interstate to have a better off/on ramp access to the other area.

The most important thing for the city, that I am sure they don't realize and will more than likely drop the ball with, is that this area should be considered an extension of downtown, not a redevelopment of an inner neighborhood. If the city is planning on wiping these old projects away, it is important to take the time to work them back into an urban grid to allow downtown to be able to expand beyond the little corner it currently sits in. This is something I have been saying for years, and a number of your frustrations you have vented have again, been towards the wrong people because that area could be a much more attractive downtown that still offers housing options to those in need as well as those who can afford to live/work in the downtown, it just requires the city to make actual bold moves, much like they did when urban renewal gutted their city, but this time something like that is needed to erase much of the damage that urban renewal costs.

{edit} Scratch that, Tidewater would need to be better connected to the rest of downtown, but would more than likely take care of any interstate issues without having to build massive on'off ramps.

Edited by urbanlife
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know you and I keep going in crcles about this one, but I will give it another go. I still think you are blaming the wrong people. Just because someone has a "good job" and "good credit" doesn't mean they are able to buy or able to afford much more in rent than they are paying there. You are basing your argument and frustrations with this project off of a generalized statement. What if those people do not have the money to put down for buying a place, maybe they can only qualify for half of what any asking price is, maybe they watched the housing market collapse and saw what is happening to people who bought more than they could afford.

There is a number of varitables in play, the big one is that there isn't a system set up to help people out of poverty, just one that helps them when they are deep into it. I have always thought there needs to be a step system in place that slowly helps people get to middle class without screwing them over when they are no longer classified as "poverty." Which for that, I blame the ones in charge of our system, not the people that are stuck in it.

As for future developments, we are talking about taking a very suburban, sprawling complex and reducing it to a more dense area that would allow for more people per mile. So lets say the city builds a four story building on the site of where they tore down a number of units, out of those people that moved out, a third move back in, as well as some poor elderly, then a developer builds 3 new 4-6 story buildings that have market rate units and maybe some below market rate units to make the place affordable to those that can afford to pay more to live downtown, but can't afford market rate. After years of doing this, the area slowly develops a healthy urban neighborhood and replaces a heavily ghetto area that had limited access into it.

This all could happen, but it would require the city to actually make some bold moves. Personally I think the city should look at this project as clearing it in large sections, divide the site up into 4-6 phases, tear down everything in that phase, then do a quick rebuild of new buildings and infrastructure, the better connected to downtown, the better. Possibly expand the NET bus (if that is even still running) to the new area to help access, as well as promoting it as new downtown living.

Then from there, it would be important for the city to attract a real grocery store, a full size one that is apart of a mix use building that provides parking and additional space above that. Also, Norfolk has a low office vacancy rate if I am correct, which would make for a great office/retail/apartment complex for market rate closest to the church through a public/private partnership. Which in doing this would be a great time to add a better connection to the area, possibly even restructuring the interstate to have a better off/on ramp access to the other area.

The most important thing for the city, that I am sure they don't realize and will more than likely drop the ball with, is that this area should be considered an extension of downtown, not a redevelopment of an inner neighborhood. If the city is planning on wiping these old projects away, it is important to take the time to work them back into an urban grid to allow downtown to be able to expand beyond the little corner it currently sits in. This is something I have been saying for years, and a number of your frustrations you have vented have again, been towards the wrong people because that area could be a much more attractive downtown that still offers housing options to those in need as well as those who can afford to live/work in the downtown, it just requires the city to make actual bold moves, much like they did when urban renewal gutted their city, but this time something like that is needed to erase much of the damage that urban renewal costs.

{edit} Scratch that, Tidewater would need to be better connected to the rest of downtown, but would more than likely take care of any interstate issues without having to build massive on'off ramps.

I agree with you, the system is flawed. I'm not mad at the residents of TG, I'm mad at the system. I'm not mad at the people Burefoot was referring to who have a good job and credit and could afford to purchase a house, I'm mad at the system that lets them stay in TG.

I agree with you that the city should not be treating SPQ like a redevelopment of an inner city neighborhood, but as an extension of DT. Part of their plan does reestablish the grid and the historic road pattern which is great. However, if this was treated as a downtown extension, we wouldn't have all of these issues and community presentations etc. But make no mistake, I don't care how long it has been, there is a mistrust in TG of the white bureaucrats as much as there is racial bias among wealthy whites against that part of Norfolk. That is the ultimate problem they are dealing with this today. Is it racist to tear down TG, which is majority black?

Developers and the city would say no, they are just redeveloping the area. Some in the TG complex would say yes...So there it is, now instead of extending the DT, it is instead the redevelopment of an already established neighborhood, even if it is all government owned. Norfolk is the epitome of the failed system and failed project housing, and now this administration (Fraim, Burefoot, etc) are treading a thin line between races, the wealthy, and the poor.

I still don't see how the "phase" aspect would work. If they do divide it into small parcels for redevelopment, those outside of TG will have to move there knowing they are surrounded by the projects, until the area is completely clear. I don't see how that could work as a selling point, and I don't want to see this project dead after phase 1 because they couldn't attract the middle and upper class to the area.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still don't see how the "phase" aspect would work. If they do divide it into small parcels for redevelopment, those outside of TG will have to move there knowing they are surrounded by the projects, until the area is completely clear. I don't see how that could work as a selling point, and I don't want to see this project dead after phase 1 because they couldn't attract the middle and upper class to the area.

Well an important factor to remember, and yes you are right, there is a serious racial tension that is going on with all of this as well, which cannot be ignored, but Norfolk isn't the only city in this country that has ever had to deal with this issue, and it would make sense to look at other major cities to see how they have handled this same situation because this project developments do need to go one way or another because they are not healthy for the city or healthy for the people living there.

I would refer to cities like Chicago which has just finished removing one of their worst slum neighborhoods on the northside (I believe, it might of been the west end area.)

The phase idea would be dividing the whole area into thirds or quarters then going through with an agressive infrastructure and a public/private project that involved a new office tower, a couple apartments buildings (including market rate, senior housing, and low income.) With that, you end up having a several block development happen on the edge of the redevelopment, then it would require a continuous agressive redevelopment where the rest of the phases go into effect within a two year period of each other...in turn that would make the whole area be a continuous construction project, it would be less about moving into the projects and more about moving into a developing urban district.

But regardless of what I think I still don't think the city has that kind of balls that they did when they did the urban renewals of the 50-60s, but then again at the same time, I can understand people's distrust of their local government because of the slum clearings of the 50-60s. As much as I would love to see Norfolk really reclaim its city and pull a total Manhattan/NYC where it goes from crime ridden/rundown to a commerce capitol, I don't see Norfolk having that same kind of determination with their own city, it tends to be that mindset of how do we work within the boundaries of what we currently have available with no insight towards major change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know you and I keep going in crcles about this one, but I will give it another go. I still think you are blaming the wrong people. Just because someone has a "good job" and "good credit" doesn't mean they are able to buy or able to afford much more in rent than they are paying there. You are basing your argument and frustrations with this project off of a generalized statement. What if those people do not have the money to put down for buying a place, maybe they can only qualify for half of what any asking price is, maybe they watched the housing market collapse and saw what is happening to people who bought more than they could afford.

There is a number of varitables in play, the big one is that there isn't a system set up to help people out of poverty, just one that helps them when they are deep into it. I have always thought there needs to be a step system in place that slowly helps people get to middle class without screwing them over when they are no longer classified as "poverty." Which for that, I blame the ones in charge of our system, not the people that are stuck in it.

As for future developments, we are talking about taking a very suburban, sprawling complex and reducing it to a more dense area that would allow for more people per mile. So lets say the city builds a four story building on the site of where they tore down a number of units, out of those people that moved out, a third move back in, as well as some poor elderly, then a developer builds 3 new 4-6 story buildings that have market rate units and maybe some below market rate units to make the place affordable to those that can afford to pay more to live downtown, but can't afford market rate. After years of doing this, the area slowly develops a healthy urban neighborhood and replaces a heavily ghetto area that had limited access into it.

This all could happen, but it would require the city to actually make some bold moves. Personally I think the city should look at this project as clearing it in large sections, divide the site up into 4-6 phases, tear down everything in that phase, then do a quick rebuild of new buildings and infrastructure, the better connected to downtown, the better. Possibly expand the NET bus (if that is even still running) to the new area to help access, as well as promoting it as new downtown living.

Then from there, it would be important for the city to attract a real grocery store, a full size one that is apart of a mix use building that provides parking and additional space above that. Also, Norfolk has a low office vacancy rate if I am correct, which would make for a great office/retail/apartment complex for market rate closest to the church through a public/private partnership. Which in doing this would be a great time to add a better connection to the area, possibly even restructuring the interstate to have a better off/on ramp access to the other area.

The most important thing for the city, that I am sure they don't realize and will more than likely drop the ball with, is that this area should be considered an extension of downtown, not a redevelopment of an inner neighborhood. If the city is planning on wiping these old projects away, it is important to take the time to work them back into an urban grid to allow downtown to be able to expand beyond the little corner it currently sits in. This is something I have been saying for years, and a number of your frustrations you have vented have again, been towards the wrong people because that area could be a much more attractive downtown that still offers housing options to those in need as well as those who can afford to live/work in the downtown, it just requires the city to make actual bold moves, much like they did when urban renewal gutted their city, but this time something like that is needed to erase much of the damage that urban renewal costs.

{edit} Scratch that, Tidewater would need to be better connected to the rest of downtown, but would more than likely take care of any interstate issues without having to build massive on'off ramps.

Yea, I'm not mad at the people, jus thte policies that allow this type of thing to happen. It is evident that this is the issue, I just know first hand those types of people. My wife and I often have conversations like this. Since we went to school with these people, we truly know, all a result of the policies of NHRA. In fact, I believe the NHRA is one if not the worst govenment departments in Norfolk. Moving forward is the issue and this should not be an hinderance.

What I do not understand is why extending DT is not a priority for them? What are they seeing that we are not?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yea, I'm not mad at the people, jus thte policies that allow this type of thing to happen. It is evident that this is the issue, I just know first hand those types of people. My wife and I often have conversations like this. Since we went to school with these people, we truly know, all a result of the policies of NHRA. In fact, I believe the NHRA is one if not the worst govenment departments in Norfolk. Moving forward is the issue and this should not be an hinderance.

What I do not understand is why extending DT is not a priority for them? What are they seeing that we are not?

Nothing, that is the problem. Norfolk is suffering from a stigma that most cities deal with. If you ask anyone to draw the borders to downtown I would bet most would say St Paul Blvd to the east, Brambleton to the north, and the water to the south and west, and that is where the problem is. For downtown to stretch beyond those boundaries would require the city to address those areas as being apart of downtown, thus treating them accordingly.

Here in Portland, downtown use to be between Burnside and Jefferson, now it fills the entire 405 loop because the city treats the university and the old railyards that were on the northern end as all part of downtown, now that same rundown area is home to some of the most expensive real estate in the city.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nothing, that is the problem. Norfolk is suffering from a stigma that most cities deal with. If you ask anyone to draw the borders to downtown I would bet most would say St Paul Blvd to the east, Brambleton to the north, and the water to the south and west, and that is where the problem is. For downtown to stretch beyond those boundaries would require the city to address those areas as being apart of downtown, thus treating them accordingly.

Here in Portland, downtown use to be between Burnside and Jefferson, now it fills the entire 405 loop because the city treats the university and the old railyards that were on the northern end as all part of downtown, now that same rundown area is home to some of the most expensive real estate in the city.

I don't want to talk bad about any of them from a personal standpoint, but it seems as though they need to invested in a department that would help them realize these things as they do a poor job of thinking. Granted, they talked about it all and knowledge something needs to change, however, they all take the "management" roll rather than grand creators that will serve the city overall. Nothing is ever drastic with them, everything is a 30 year plane, have cocked ideas. From this, I dfferently do need to hold them down to an idea for the future.

My dad (who left norfolk when he was 17 and never came back) says the same thing all the time, and I'm starting to believe him as I get older. He said the old leaders of Norfolk didn't want Norfolk to be a huge city so they took steps to prevent that from happening (the Norfolk squires were one of those steps to rid us of a big time future). He has no actual base in that, but it makes more and more sense as I get older their thought processes. I do not directly believe that about burfoot, he just seems young and truly does not have concept of how to make a big time city. The others seem very part of the machine as my dad speaks of.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't want to talk bad about any of them from a personal standpoint, but it seems as though they need to invested in a department that would help them realize these things as they do a poor job of thinking. Granted, they talked about it all and knowledge something needs to change, however, they all take the "management" roll rather than grand creators that will serve the city overall. Nothing is ever drastic with them, everything is a 30 year plane, have cocked ideas. From this, I dfferently do need to hold them down to an idea for the future.

My dad (who left norfolk when he was 17 and never came back) says the same thing all the time, and I'm starting to believe him as I get older. He said the old leaders of Norfolk didn't want Norfolk to be a huge city so they took steps to prevent that from happening (the Norfolk squires were one of those steps to rid us of a big time future). He has no actual base in that, but it makes more and more sense as I get older their thought processes. I do not directly believe that about burfoot, he just seems young and truly does not have concept of how to make a big time city. The others seem very part of the machine as my dad speaks of.

I won't worry too much about the personal standpoint when talking about politicians, Portland's greatest mayor from the 70s that made Portland what it is today was a horrible human being who cheated on his wife with their kid's teenage babysitter all while in office, then went on to be one of the best governors this state has ever had. Usually when it comes to politics, I typically put personals aside and judge them solely on their merits of governing and leading.

Norfolk does need a 30yr plan, but that plan needs to be designed in 5y and 10y goals as if it were a timeline checklist.

I do have to agree with your dad on his feeling of the city, not sure if he is right that the people in charge want to stay small or not, but the city has always acted like they functioned in a small town still surrounded by rural areas. As much as I would love to see that area grow and change, I am much happier not living there and actually living in cities that fit my needs better like Portland, and coming this summer New York City, but I would love to one day see Norfolk get that mayor and and city government people that are all younger and have this hope of massive changes....actually that reminds me, the younger part is a key to change. Portland's government that made all these massive moves in the 70s was the youngest group of people we have ever had running this city, something that would be good for Norfolk too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually re-reading the current plan that is being worked on, I have to say that it does a really good job addressing the issues, proposing a realistic idea, but makes note of added possibilities, like the possibility of the area being denser that what is being proposed.

I think if they build what they are proposing and do it in a faster motion to help the area switch over faster, I think it will probably be a fairly successful project. Though the project is still in its proposal phase, and I don't think has even come close to final proposal phase yet, which this is a project the city really shouldn't drag its feet with, and I really hope this isn't just a paper proposal project that never gets off the ground because we should really be seeing a 10yr change once this project is finalized....but I will probably keep the expectations low on this one until I see buildings rising.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually re-reading the current plan that is being worked on, I have to say that it does a really good job addressing the issues, proposing a realistic idea, but makes note of added possibilities, like the possibility of the area being denser that what is being proposed.

I think if they build what they are proposing and do it in a faster motion to help the area switch over faster, I think it will probably be a fairly successful project. Though the project is still in its proposal phase, and I don't think has even come close to final proposal phase yet, which this is a project the city really shouldn't drag its feet with, and I really hope this isn't just a paper proposal project that never gets off the ground because we should really be seeing a 10yr change once this project is finalized....but I will probably keep the expectations low on this one until I see buildings rising.

Yes, I was actually surprised at the lack of appeared interest in the room about the subject. The person who was presenting and his partner had to rush out, so he gave a quick presentation, and it was only 3 or 4 respondents. That's encouraging at all. I'm like you, I will keep my expectations low and look for something similar to what's next to macauthur center and broadcreek type of thing. Maybe a couple of store fronts, but thats' about it. Again, the area is so bad aesthetically, anything will make it look better and I that's pretty much their position. I understand the need for mix income living, but they had opportunities to put that in place in other portions of Dt. Again, NHRA has failed Norfolk as this is one of the bigger issues. Choice living as burfoot put it, should be in the plans along with expanding DT to work with traditional urban-like city layouts. Districts, districts, districts... Maybe the real problem is that they have a greater plan that they fail to convey to the people?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 3 weeks later...

So I thought I'd chime in, I agree with most and think if this project is done right, it will tremendously benefit the downtown area, even though I think the economy needs to pick up first... However, something needs to be done with Tidewater Gardens and their associated structures I feel it's long overdue. Anyways, I guess the Postal Service is sending out mixed signals about their processing facility on the NE corner, should they decide to consolidate all operations to Richmond and vacate this plot is there a chance the city tries to obtain and incorporate it into the master plan?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I thought I'd chime in, I agree with most and think if this project is done right, it will tremendously benefit the downtown area, even though I think the economy needs to pick up first... However, something needs to be done with Tidewater Gardens and their associated structures I feel it's long overdue. Anyways, I guess the Postal Service is sending out mixed signals about their processing facility on the NE corner, should they decide to consolidate all operations to Richmond and vacate this plot is there a chance the city tries to obtain and incorporate it into the master plan?

I was thinking the same thing, in fact, it seems to open it up a lot. I think it was some talk about closing tidewater gardens elem. that would slate that entire area for redevelopment which should be a priorty one if you ask me. The only problem is, they are leveraging the possiblities of what the area could be. There are two areas that could significantly change the entire outlook of Norfolk, St. pauls quad and fort Norfolk. If those two areas could be done right and quickly, Norfolk could be an up and coming city again.

Sorry, three if you include the harbor area.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 months later...

It's been 6 months since that last meeting...any idea on what the next step is for this? I looked at the Powerpoint, and it looks promising, although I'd like to see a few taller buildings. One of the presentations cites Pentagon Row (see below), something I'd love to see here instead of a bunch of cookie-cutter concrete slabs.

334_pentagonRownight_class.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There has definitely been a lot of foot dragging with this one, starting to make me think it was just another failed idea. Hopefully some news of this will start to pop up sooner or later.

I would hope that they would start on the far eastern end for redeveloping, allowing them to hold off on developing the land closest to St Paul Blvd last to give that land a chance to be bought up and developed by private developers.

Though it would be nice to start seeing a new street grid put into place throughout this area. Also with the amount of time they are taking with this, I wish the city would go ahead with planning a streetcar through this area that connects it to downtown and other inner neighborhoods.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was a lot of movement on this in February, with a number of townhall type meetings with the current residents over there. Frank Duke also gave briefings on this during a couple of City Council Meetings. This was also during all of the Waterside Activity so it seemed to take a backseat to that. Anyway, here's the city's site on St. Pauls.

http://www.norfolk.gov/planning/SaintPaulsQuadrant.asp

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

For what it's worth there's a city planning commission preview today at City Hall.  http://www.norfolk.gov/planning/saintpaulsquadrant.asp

 

Looks like there's a city council preview next month as well. 

 

I am curious if anything in the project has changed.  Weren't they going to put the bus transfer station there now?  That may serve as the catalyst to get the who redevelopment going :dontknow:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
Looks like the planning commission is going to adopt the St. Paul's quadrant plan on Feb. 28. Hopefully this will start to get the process moving. http://www.norfolk.gov/Planning/PDFFiles/CPC/February_agenda.pdf
I know its expensive, but if they could begin with a complete re-establishment of the street grid in the area it would be a massive leap in the right direction. They would initially displace a few families and could figure out how to handle a complete relocation before an entire overhaul of the area takes place.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • vdogg changed the title to St. Paul's Quadrant (Phase 1-Under Construction)
  • vdogg pinned this topic
  • vdogg unpinned this topic

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.

×
×
  • 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.