St. Paul's Quadrant (Phase 2-Under Construction)

[varider]

I think I am starting to see your perspective on on this SPQ plan. I guess I need to ask you this: Is it your assumption, under the current make up and density of DT, that building out this plan (as it currently is, SPQ) would make our DT more successful essentially by adding additional people and new homes to the vicinity of DT and that in turn will make our DT better and more bustling?

Yeah, I do. 260,000 sq. foot of office space, 378,000 sq. feet of retail, 1900-2100 housing units. Yes, I think this will make our downtown more bustling, and increase activity. With more people living in or near downtown, how could it not? After reading your post in the waterside thread, it seems you disagree. Your comparison to freemason was a good one, however the SPQ plan calls for much more connectivity to downtown than freemason has. Plus the economic growth should be greater in SPQ because of the mix of office, retail, and housing.

Edited July 21, 2009 by varider

[brikkman]

Yeah, I do. 260,000 sq. foot of office space, 378,000 sq. feet of retail, 1900-2100 housing units. Yes, I think this will make our downtown more bustling, and increase activity. With more people living in or near downtown, how could it not? After reading your post in the waterside thread, it seems you disagree. Your comparison to freemason was a good one, however the SPQ plan calls for much more connectivity to downtown than freemason has. Plus the economic growth should be greater in SPQ because of the mix of office, retail, and housing.

I guess that is why I respectfully disagree. I do not think the addition of the SPQ plan will do anything for a bustling DT, in fact I think it would do just the opposite in some light. I think it is just more than adding people to the area and couple of buildings and hope for the best, it has to have "draw". In my opinion, SPQ draw is for the current residents to have something else newer, a 200x housing project. Don't get me wrong, I think it is a good idea, it just needs to be more in my opinion than hoping for the best. I think we need to expand our DT to attract more business, more business means more jobs, the more jobs means more money, and so on and so on. What's stopping people from coming to DT now, at least from the southside stand point? And I guess when you step back and look at it, I can understand why people in hampton or newport news would not visit DT in essence, but what about va.beach, chesapeake and suffolk residents? What's their excuse right now to not visit or spend time in DT like we would hope? I can think of only one reason, NO DRAW. These people have access to DT right now, but a good portion would rather visit VA.TC, you have to ask yourself these questions. They have access to DT just like VA.TC, but a good chunk goes to VA.TC to hang out. Its new, its fresh, they do not have to worry about bumps or the poor harassing them (not to say it will never be that way), comparable things to do, nicer atmosphere, good places to eat that is known nationally. And less than a quarter mile is a mall, other places to eat and shop, and a bestbuy. TC as small as it is creating a stalemate with DT which isn't good for DT. Adding more people to the mix with nothing to do or little draw will only continue to move us at this slow pace. I agree with your notion, but I believe it comes after a crafty expansion plan for DT in SPQ.

Edited July 21, 2009 by brikkman

[varider]

Well what would you suggest the city do? I think if the city builds fair market value housing in st. pauls quadrant, more and more people will want to live there, thus increasing the population and activity downtown. The plan is a good one to me. What could make it better? I really don't know. I'd love for downtown to have 100,000 employees and 25,000 residents, but what needs to be done to make it happen? If downtown expands north of Brambleton, east to Tidewater Drive & Harbor Park, and West to Medical Center, the population would easily be 15,000-20,000.. Employment would easily be 60,000- 70,000.. I mean think about it Fort Norfolk developing, retail/ apartments at harbor park, EVMS growing, TCC growing, the daytime population of downtown norfolk would easily top 100,000. But we need that IT, that cities like Baltimore have.We need something for everyone. Kids, Older people, Young Professionals, etc. Our best bet would be an entirely revamped waterfront extending the esplande from Fort Norfolk all the way to Harbor Park, Russe company rebuild Waterside to resemble something like Baltimore, A Dave & Buster's, something for everybody. All of these things could be a draw. Right now, I like going downtown more than TC just becuase of the urbanity of downtown and to me the biggest attraction is the waterfront.. Another thing that keeps people from going downtown is the likeability of Ghent and Colley Ave. etc. I'm sure if Norfolk was the only urban center of the entire region it would be bigger than downtown baltimore, but it has so much competition. That doesn't mean it still can't grow to become an amazing, urban, bustling downtown that it has the potential to be.

Edited July 21, 2009 by varider

[brikkman]

Well what would you suggest the city do? I think if the city builds fair market value housing in st. pauls quadrant, more and more people will want to live there, thus increasing the population and activity downtown. The plan is a good one to me. What could make it better? I really don't know. I'd love for downtown to have 100,000 employees and 25,000 residents, but what needs to be done to make it happen? If downtown expands north of Brambleton, east to Tidewater Drive & Harbor Park, and West to Medical Center, the population would easily be 15,000-20,000.. Employment would easily be 60,000- 70,000.. I mean think about it Fort Norfolk developing, retail/ apartments at harbor park, EVMS growing, TCC growing, the daytime population of downtown norfolk would easily top 100,000. But we need that IT, that cities like Baltimore have.We need something for everyone. Kids, Older people, Young Professionals, etc. Our best bet would be an entirely revamped waterfront extending the esplande from Fort Norfolk all the way to Harbor Park, Russe company rebuild Waterside to resemble something like Baltimore, A Dave & Buster's, something for everybody. All of these things could be a draw. Right now, I like going downtown more than TC just becuase of the urbanity of downtown and to me the biggest attraction is the waterfront.. Another thing that keeps people from going downtown is the likeability of Ghent and Colley Ave. etc. I'm sure if Norfolk was the only urban center of the entire region it would be bigger than downtown baltimore, but it has so much competition. That doesn't mean it still can't grow to become an amazing, urban, bustling downtown that it has the potential to be.

Well, what I would suggest before approving the current SPQ plan is to re-establish the street grid (I think that's what you guys say) or rather create city blocks. Build in districts to support the standard draw such as, entertainment, art, fine dinning maybe. Make these buildings anywhere from 2 to 5 stories that are multi use and unique. If it were me, i would make it all brick, steele, and glass. Have the city some how make the developers offer it reasonable prices for businesses to relocate (maybe create a creative lease). Contact national chain like hardrock cafe and ask them to be an anchor for this new set of development. Build out an entertainment stage or gathering point of some type. Leave an area for scrapers and so forth, then build out the spq plan on the east side of all that.

[rusthebuss]

Well, what I would suggest before approving the current SPQ plan is to re-establish the street grid (I think that's what you guys say) or rather create city blocks. Build in districts to support the standard draw such as, entertainment, art, fine dinning maybe. Make these buildings anywhere from 2 to 5 stories that are multi use and unique. If it were me, i would make it all brick, steele, and glass. Have the city some how make the developers offer it reasonable prices for businesses to relocate (maybe create a creative lease). Contact national chain like hardrock cafe and ask them to be an anchor for this new set of development. Build out an entertainment stage or gathering point of some type. Leave an area for scrapers and so forth, then build out the spq plan on the east side of all that.

I totally agree with this. DT has to a unique draw for this region...they need to do something to bring people from other areas in!

the problem is that i see is that we try to copy cat! I don't like this at all! We need to be original

[varider]

Meeting on the Comprehensive Plan for St. Paul's Quadrant is scheduled for Tuesday, October 1 @ 4 p.m. Norfolk City Hall

[urbanlife]

ugh, wanna talk about a slow process...this seems like it has been going on forever...I am also curious if this is just a plan for what the future of SPQ is suppose to be or is the city actually planning to put this on the front burner and get developers lined up to start construction of this new district?

[varider]

ugh, wanna talk about a slow process...this seems like it has been going on forever...I am also curious if this is just a plan for what the future of SPQ is suppose to be or is the city actually planning to put this on the front burner and get developers lined up to start construction of this new district?

Well, I'm guesssing this is more of a solid plan being that the city gave a time frame of 10-15 years for completion, they are working with Tidewater Park residents, and it's something that needs to be done.

[lil-bear]

I can understand being sensitive to the residents at the housing projects.

But why would anyone living in a project get a say anyways.

If someone was living in an market rate apartment bldg and the owner decided to tear it down to build something else,

the tenants will NOT get a say......

[urbanlife]

I can understand being sensitive to the residents at the housing projects.

But why would anyone living in a project get a say anyways.

If someone was living in an market rate apartment bldg and the owner decided to tear it down to build something else,

the tenants will NOT get a say......

That's the difference between a social program and a private development...it is like the car and the bus...the car can go any direction that it wants to go, while the bus has a route that is set to aid all of the riders. People in housing projects are not the same as prisoners, they shouldnt be stuck someplace out of the way because it is convenient to the rest of the city.

[ronsmytheiii]

That's the difference between a social program and a private development...it is like the car and the bus...the car can go any direction that it wants to go, while the bus has a route that is set to aid all of the riders. People in housing projects are not the same as prisoners, they shouldnt be stuck someplace out of the way because it is convenient to the rest of the city.

What do you mean, Norfolk's jail is in the middle of the downtown area!

[mistermetaj]

That's the difference between a social program and a private development...it is like the car and the bus...the car can go any direction that it wants to go, while the bus has a route that is set to aid all of the riders. People in housing projects are not the same as prisoners, they shouldnt be stuck someplace out of the way because it is convenient to the rest of the city.

Others tax dollars supplement their living. It's actually similar to a prison in a way if you look at it like that. The difference is, the tax payers aren't preventing them from getting out like prisoner. I don't agree they should have a say where their free(or close to it) living should go. They should WANT to get out of the public housing, and I don't see putting it in a prominent downtown area as incentive to leave.

Edited September 28, 2009 by mistermetaj

[lil-bear]

Others tax dollars supplement their living. It's actually similar to a prison in a way if you look at it like that. The difference is, the tax payers aren't preventing them from getting out like prisoner. I don't agree they should have a say where their free(or close to it) living should go. They should WANT to get out of the public housing, and I don't see putting it in a prominent downtown area as incentive to leave.

Amen to that!

I thought that public housing was suppsed to be a temporary thing to help those in need get on their feet.

It seems like a hand out to me!

If the city feels like it has to house people, then why not pepper public housing throughout the entire city.

Then that way....they aren't concentrated in one area.

Besides, isn't section 8 supposed to help dis-advantaged live in moderate housing therefore getting them out of the projects?

[brikkman]

yeah, hard to discuss matters like this with "perfect world" ideas. The front issue with public housing in Norfolk is that they system does not require people to do better, it allows them to soak up tax money. I do agree we should not boot them, but I do agree that they do not have a choice/say in ANYTHING....especially when you can live there forever for FREE.....

I wonder what would happen if the people demanded NHRA be put up on a panel to discuss their housing policies, how would that go?

Question from the audience..... "oo,oo,oo, I have question...Why are people who receive public housing allowed to have satelite TV but our taxes are REQUIRED to fund their living conditions, healthcare, food, well being, clothing, elec., water, etc........"... wonder what the response would be - "dahhhh, didn't know that"

[varider]

It's really a tough situation the city has gotten itself into. I'm still trying to figure out why they built public housing adjacent to the central busienss district into the first place.

[jbhay]

^ Good thought.

edit: crap I hate when that happens, lol.

Edited September 28, 2009 by jbhay

[urbanlife]

Amen to that!

I thought that public housing was suppsed to be a temporary thing to help those in need get on their feet.

It seems like a hand out to me!

If the city feels like it has to house people, then why not pepper public housing throughout the entire city.

Then that way....they aren't concentrated in one area.

Besides, isn't section 8 supposed to help dis-advantaged live in moderate housing therefore getting them out of the projects?

Yes it should be spread throughout the city, concentrations like what Norfolk currently has puts people at a disadvantage for improving their lives. Though with that said, it would make no sense to not pepper low income housing through this project as well as other projects throughout the city. Also, the city should feel like it has to house people...there are always going to be people that are below the poverty level and if the city doesnt provide housing, they all become homeless people, which having homeless all over the city is much worse that trying to provide housing for everyone.

[mistermetaj]

Yes it should be spread throughout the city, concentrations like what Norfolk currently has puts people at a disadvantage for improving their lives. Though with that said, it would make no sense to not pepper low income housing through this project as well as other projects throughout the city. Also, the city should feel like it has to house people...there are always going to be people that are below the poverty level and if the city doesnt provide housing, they all become homeless people, which having homeless all over the city is much worse that trying to provide housing for everyone.

I agree to an extent, and your reasons are just. I just don't like the idea that the reason for keeping some public housing anywhere, or gearing the development one way or the other is because current public housing residents wanted something one way. They should NOT be consulted in any of this. If they live off the good grace of the city, then they are at the mercy of the city, not at the front of some negotiating table.

[urbanlife]

I agree to an extent, and your reasons are just. I just don't like the idea that the reason for keeping some public housing anywhere, or gearing the development one way or the other is because current public housing residents wanted something one way. They should NOT be consulted in any of this. If they live off the good grace of the city, then they are at the mercy of the city, not at the front of some negotiating table.

But in a city that is full of racial history, that is a fine line to walk and it would be wrong for the city to take a large black population and tell them they are gonna have to move so that the land can be used for higher incomes. Regardless if you like something or not, it would be wrong for the city to just shuffle people around with little care about them just because they are under the poverty line. It would be better for the city to look at this as a chance to improve their lives and living conditions and give them a neighborhood they can feel safe in...when people feel safe, it increases the chances of them to wish for a better life for themselves as well.

There is always going to be poor people in cities and there is going to always be need for housing for them. The question is should a city just bunch them together in areas that are less important or try to integrate them throughout the city in each neighborhood to prevent areas from becoming ghetto? Also, there is a current population to SPQ, which I am a strong believer of working with what is currently at hand, so with that in mind, there is a population that will have to live somewhere. So I question where is a good place for them to live? The answer to that question isnt easy, which it is clear to say that not everyone that currently lives in SPQ will come back to the new housing in the district, but many will. But I raise this question because if one believes that low income housing should be spread throughout the city so that there isnt a concentration of low income housing in the city like there currently is, then shouldnt this neighborhood be an example of that way of thinking? That is like saying the city should decentralize its low income neighborhoods, but not in this neighborhood...maybe other neighborhoods...which would lead to other neighborhoods standing up and saying, not in my neighborhood...then you are back to square one with centralized low income housing.

Is this fair to others that work hard for a living and pay their taxes? Probably not, but everyone should know the world isnt fair because if it were, we would live in a socialism world where no one made more or less than anyone else and we all had the same things available to us all...now that would be fair....but that isnt our world, now is it.

[varider]

I think the city is just pretending to care about the low income residents just to seem politically correct.

[mistermetaj]

But in a city that is full of racial history, that is a fine line to walk and it would be wrong for the city to take a large black population and tell them they are gonna have to move so that the land can be used for higher incomes. Regardless if you like something or not, it would be wrong for the city to just shuffle people around with little care about them just because they are under the poverty line. It would be better for the city to look at this as a chance to improve their lives and living conditions and give them a neighborhood they can feel safe in...when people feel safe, it increases the chances of them to wish for a better life for themselves as well.

There is always going to be poor people in cities and there is going to always be need for housing for them. The question is should a city just bunch them together in areas that are less important or try to integrate them throughout the city in each neighborhood to prevent areas from becoming ghetto? Also, there is a current population to SPQ, which I am a strong believer of working with what is currently at hand, so with that in mind, there is a population that will have to live somewhere. So I question where is a good place for them to live? The answer to that question isnt easy, which it is clear to say that not everyone that currently lives in SPQ will come back to the new housing in the district, but many will. But I raise this question because if one believes that low income housing should be spread throughout the city so that there isnt a concentration of low income housing in the city like there currently is, then shouldnt this neighborhood be an example of that way of thinking? That is like saying the city should decentralize its low income neighborhoods, but not in this neighborhood...maybe other neighborhoods...which would lead to other neighborhoods standing up and saying, not in my neighborhood...then you are back to square one with centralized low income housing.

Is this fair to others that work hard for a living and pay their taxes? Probably not, but everyone should know the world isnt fair because if it were, we would live in a socialism world where no one made more or less than anyone else and we all had the same things available to us all...now that would be fair....but that isnt our world, now is it.

Kind of sounds like welfare to me...

[urbanlife]

So why do you guys keep going down this same road every time? The city must work with the current situation at hand, there are a number of low income housing residents within the neighborhood....the current options are to make a number of units apart of the redevelopment or to build more low income housing elsewhere...which if the city cant build low income housing apart of this development, then where else should they build them and what neighborhood would want low income housing in their neighborhood if the city wont add them to here?

Again, you guys can whine about the unfair advantage that the residents of SPQ have because of their income class, but that doesnt change the fact that the city has made it a point to say they would be apart of the redevelopment since the beginning...which if the city didnt care, then I doubt the city would of been doing that.

So exactly what to you guys hope to achieve by trying to go down this road every few pages?

[mistermetaj]

So why do you guys keep going down this same road every time? The city must work with the current situation at hand, there are a number of low income housing residents within the neighborhood....the current options are to make a number of units apart of the redevelopment or to build more low income housing elsewhere...which if the city cant build low income housing apart of this development, then where else should they build them and what neighborhood would want low income housing in their neighborhood if the city wont add them to here?

Again, you guys can whine about the unfair advantage that the residents of SPQ have because of their income class, but that doesnt change the fact that the city has made it a point to say they would be apart of the redevelopment since the beginning...which if the city didnt care, then I doubt the city would of been doing that.

So exactly what to you guys hope to achieve by trying to go down this road every few pages?

Judging from the thread of posts from this recent conversation, I think it all stems from the time frame in which SPQ is going to be turned from a vision into construction. Right now, planners are still meeting with TG residents. The question is FOR WHAT? They are getting a certain amount of units put into the development. What is left to be catered to? I think justifiably so, some people are disgruntled that the direction of such a large project is being partially dictated by the wants of the poorer masses living off the taxes of those who cannot afford to live in the area they will be living in for free. Is it the situation, yes. Will it change, no. But honestly, with the lack of news on SPQ and just a few rendering to look at, what else is there to talk about on the issue?

Now that being said, you're right that we've beaten this topic like a pi

[urbanfan]

But in a city that is full of racial history, that is a fine line to walk and it would be wrong for the city to take a large black population and tell them they are gonna have to move so that the land can be used for higher incomes. Regardless if you like something or not, it would be wrong for the city to just shuffle people around with little care about them just because they are under the poverty line. It would be better for the city to look at this as a chance to improve their lives and living conditions and give them a neighborhood they can feel safe in...when people feel safe, it increases the chances of them to wish for a better life for themselves as well.

There is always going to be poor people in cities and there is going to always be need for housing for them. The question is should a city just bunch them together in areas that are less important or try to integrate them throughout the city in each neighborhood to prevent areas from becoming ghetto? Also, there is a current population to SPQ, which I am a strong believer of working with what is currently at hand, so with that in mind, there is a population that will have to live somewhere. So I question where is a good place for them to live? The answer to that question isnt easy, which it is clear to say that not everyone that currently lives in SPQ will come back to the new housing in the district, but many will. But I raise this question because if one believes that low income housing should be spread throughout the city so that there isnt a concentration of low income housing in the city like there currently is, then shouldnt this neighborhood be an example of that way of thinking? That is like saying the city should decentralize its low income neighborhoods, but not in this neighborhood...maybe other neighborhoods...which would lead to other neighborhoods standing up and saying, not in my neighborhood...then you are back to square one with centralized low income housing.

Is this fair to others that work hard for a living and pay their taxes? Probably not, but everyone should know the world isnt fair because if it were, we would live in a socialism world where no one made more or less than anyone else and we all had the same things available to us all...now that would be fair....but that isnt our world, now is it.

In a socialist world everyone is repressed and makes the same amount of money except for those who are in charge who do quite well. Never works

[urbanlife]

In a socialist world everyone is repressed and makes the same amount of money except for those who are in charge who do quite well. Never works

Then that isnt a true socialist system...if it were, even those in charge would be making the same amount because it would all be for the good of the functioning system...but that would never work because it is in our nature to want more than the others around us.