What does downtown Norfolk need?

[Sky06]

Norfolk can barely support a sub par retail market and sub par restaurant market. It technically cannot even be called the center of this metro considering most of the metro wealth and population resides in a different city. What we've seen from Norfolk thus far is a lot of filler to a once completely destroyed downtown. We have not seen it take the leap you are suggesting like Portland did or like Charlotte has done recently into being well established cities. It's just not there yet. To suggest an area that will double downtown with 40 percent low income or whatever the numbers are is going to miraculously bring the DT into the 21st century with brand new offices and retail store fronts makes not sense.

[varider]

Sky I'm glad you put all of that out there! I wanted to say that but I was too lazy to type it all. Even though it is laid out in a suburban format, Norfolk has tons of retail.. I mean how many cities our size can say they have almost 2 million sq. feet of retail in the CBD?! I'm perfectly fine with the things happening Downtown. The 2020 plan is the coolest.. St. Paul's Quadrant will come along.. Norfolk is great! How could someone call it "filler"

[Sky06]

Sky I'm glad you put all of that out there! I wanted to say that but I was too lazy to type it all. Even though it is laid out in a suburban format, Norfolk has tons of retail.. I mean how many cities our size can say they have almost 2 million sq. feet of retail in the CBD?! I'm perfectly fine with the things happening Downtown. The 2020 plan is the coolest.. St. Paul's Quadrant will come along.. Norfolk is great! How could someone call it "filler"

[varider]

I am really enjoying this conversation.. It's a great topic.. How can we make our city better? We should have been talking about this for ever! We already know the city is planning on new office towers next to the courts all the way down to Waterside, the Westin, new developments along Brambleton, Granby Tower development.. I mean come on guys we should look at anything that comes from St. Paul's Quadrant an added bonus..If Norfolk follows their initiatives in their current Plan, the city will be so much better, even without considering St. Paul's.

[mistermetaj]

Filler? Really? I'm not sure where you are getting your facts. Here are mine:

1. Norfolk is the banking center of Hampton Roads. Every bank in the region that I can think of is located in the CBD.

2. Norfolk is the cultural center of the region. Perhaps of the state. Let's consider the Virginia Opera, Virginia Symphony, Virginia Stage Company, Chrysler Museum, Chrysler Hall, Virginia Arts Festival (regional yes, but headquartered in Norfolk), Roper Center, NORVA, D'Art Center, Hurrah Players, Tidewater Winds, Virginia Ballet Theater, Generic Theater, Little Theater of Norfolk, and much more. Hampton Roads is blessed with a multitude of new perfomring arts venues, but to call the downtown arts scene "filler" is a bit misguided.

3. Your comment on the sub-par restaurant market is ridiculous. Downtown and the surrounding area have excellent restaurants with more ethnic variety than anywhere else in the region. I think downtown even has 2 culinary schools now. Hopefully, you're not subscribing to the Virginia Pilot School of Journalism. Hate it while it's here. Love it once it's gone.

4. Norfolk is the sports capitol of the region. It has pro hockey, pro baseball, and Division 1 NCAA sports.

5. Norfolk is showing more vision than any other city in the area. Think about light rail. Think about the new cruise terminal. Think about the new convention center. Think about a downtown mall and downtown baseball stadium. These things bring people and they bring money.

6. If not for MacArthur Mall, I could almost agree on the retail part. But remember, it wasn't that long ago when Granby Street was pedestrian only, with ugly oversized planters, and unpatronized stores. No one wanted to shop in DT before the Mall. Now things are turning around. If what you're looking for is a Target or Wal-Mart, go to the burbs. Do you see those things around the Mall in DC? No. You do see old established retailers, but they don't have to compete with a mall. I'd love to see a Macy's flagship-type store on the Granby lot, beneath a 35-story mixed use tower. But such things take time.

In the meantime, DT Norfolk is FAR FAR more than filler. And the changes over the past 10 years have been dramatic. They may not be as noticeable as in a smaller, younger city like Charlotte. Because all you have to do is build from scratch. But Norfolk is older and has more history. More wealthy people might live at the Beach, but you can say the same in most other cities too. NY and Chicago might be exceptions. But LA, Philly, and just about anywhere else is not. Things are slowly changing everywhere, and Norfolk is no exception.

[mlsimons]

Parts of what you are say make sense and is an important thing, social housing should not be concentrated and should be spread throughout the city. Which is the problem with areas like Tidewater Gardens because of its concentration of one type of income.

The part that I have a problem with is that you believe they should be displaced to other areas of lesser value? That just makes no sense, it really means lets put them where they are more out of the way. I know you mean well with what you are thinking but I think you are going about it the wrong way. The same amount of space in Portland (our 200ft x 200ft blocks) is about 75 blocks, you mean to tell me not a few of those could be for public housing? If you are for decentralization, then you should be for this because it would be the first step in doing that without forcing everyone to live this part of the city.

I am sure that many think it is unfair that the poor get to live next to downtown, while the middle class has no options available to them, but kicking out the poor isnt going to fix anything about that. The city is in control of low income housing, developers are in control of the land they own to maximize profits. If you moved the poor out and let the developers build, they are going to build just high end because they want the most in return....remember we do live in a capitalist system and this is what you get, there are no plans in place from any city that helps create housing for middle incomes because they are not the ones getting government assistance.

So in the end, the city still needs to replace this units somewhere in the city, blending them into St Paul Quadrant is the easiest option, as well as making "affordable housing" (which is below market rate, and government assisted) an option...

Also, even with the idea that it is meant to be temporary housing, this is not FEMA and there will always be people below the poverty line, the more the city helps, the less there will be in homelessness. Plus if proper programs are in place and they are given a chance to live in an area that is not ghetto, it could increase the quality of living for them and others that live in the area.

Just because the area looks bad now, doesnt mean you need to kick everyone out to make it better.

[urbanlife]

I am all for decentralization, my whole issue is that the city should not be designating welfare housing in the most popular part of town. It leaves no room for anything affordable. I understand you feel as though the alternative is the private market providing only high-end housing. But the market for high end is only so high. If this was not the case, then Ghent would be only attainable to the wealthiest residents in the region (b/c ghent is market driven and popular). However, affordable housing always exist among the popular places (based on the cost of living). Example; the older units which are yet to be renovated, also units located close to negative externalities like busy roads or noisy rail lines.

However as it exists now, we have two extremes in downtown, high-end living because the space is so limited, and subsidized poverty housing. If the city simply refused to build anymore public housing downtown, even in the context of a decentralized mixed-income project, then the market would build whatever they could sell. If it was high-end units, then build it, the affordable units will come indirectly once the market becomes saturated with its high-end availability.

My only point is that I feel if something is ever going to be subsidized, it should not ever be in a very desirable location. Not that it should be in a dangerous centralized quarantined place either. But what's wrong with the broad creek project, or a new mixed-income project somewhere East along the transit line. Why does public housing need walking access to the cultural amenities which the middle and upper class value more anyways; museums, premium shopping/dining....especially if they will have access on the transit line anyways.

[mlsimons]

The kind of system we live in, the government is suppose to help the poor, while everyone else above the poverty line is on their own...if you want to live in a location that is expensive, then you better make more money. Also the whole cultural amenities for just the middle class and upper class and the poor can always bus themselves in is a bit of an elitist point of view (and I hate using that word, seriously....but that statement called for it.)

[urbanlife]

I'm not going to argue either on the concept of affordable housing in downtowns. But I don't think you will be able to change my opinion on welfare housing, which is way different in my mind than poor housing. You can be a home owner or a sustainable renter and be poor. And the threat of gentrification can even change the face of your neighborhood (i.e. Ghent in the early 70's), and steps should be taken to aid homeowners and long time renters in that situation. But welfare housing is temporary housing. And cultural amenities have a monetary value. I'm sorry that my thoughts come across as "elitist" but my goal is always consistency in my views. I am a student of urban planning and environmental justice and I realize how these issues are interpreted and sound, especially when I talk plainly and without poetic regard for those who may be in bad situations.

But my whole point is simple; if its Ok and perfectly healthy to live in the suburbs away from all cultural amenities and entertainment options, then it is equally Ok for the welfare recipients to be denied* "walkability" to these amenities to allow for those who can afford them to live there instead, especially when the there will be adequate/safe transportation to these amenities should the welfare recipients wish to enjoy them or work in the field. This is not a method of shifting the poor, which have equal rights to live wherever they choose. But this is safely shifting* those who are reliant on the system in order to provide more tax dollars into the market, which will in turn provide more job opportunities, which in turn will offer more mobility to those wishing to climb out of welfare. I understand that you may not agree, which is fine. But there is nothing "wrong" with this option, even if you may feel others options are better, which is fine by me also.

*(Please do not get me wrong; no matter how politically incorrect it sounds. "Shifting the welfare recipients" is not wrong necessarily, only when it is done unethically and/or to achieve personal gain at the welfare recipients' expense. There are many times when "shifting the welfare recipients" is actually good, in terms of opportunity and health. )

[mlsimons]

I am now confused on your stance, I agree with you about on the effects of temporary housing, that it should be more of a decentralized method that is incorporated in with mix use development (unless I am wrong and you dont mean that, which makes it hard for me to believe if you are in urban planning because I am an architecture student and also know a thing or two about urban planning.)

The comment about denying low income the ability of being walkability amenities...that really bothers me. So should the city buy each poor person a car? It would make more sense to allow lower incomes better access to transit and more walkable areas to help promote transit and urban neighborhoods.

Also, the suburbs were created by middle and upper classes so they could get away from the dirtiness of the downtowns back when all the factory jobs were downtown, then cities began using that available land within their urban areas to fill with low income housing, but often times in a very poor manner.

Also to lead into a question for you, first off I have a hard time seeing how it could be seen as ethical to relocate an entire housing development for money...because that is what you are saying, whether you think you are or not. So with that said, I would ask, where would the city relocate those displaces residents to other parts of the city? How would the city create incentives for middle income housing? What would be the square footage be needed for middle incomes? How would the city control who lived there? How would the city create incentives for developers to want to build at a lower profit...or possible a loss? And how would the city handle the future use of low income housing in other areas that are to be deemed "desirable locations."

This is not a simple question of urban planning...move low incomes out, replace with higher incomes, increases tax revenues. There is the social effects that go into this as well, so something that might sound great on paper could have devastating effects in real life.

[urbanlife]

The picture you are describing already exist in Norfolk, in the Broad Creek neighborhood. There is ample walkability to real resources and future transit....and room for expansion. Resources which are within reach and scope of the poor (both home owners, renters, and welfare recipients). This is the same type of neighborhood in which you are describing for St. Paul's Quadrant, which I am not. I agree in this form of neighborhood in most all parts of the city, and agree its the best method to decentralize the welfare recipients and to prevent the "welfare culture" from being established in one place. My only issue, is missing the unique opportunities which exist at St. Paul's specifically; it being located in a growing downtown....which will also one day be the closest property to the intermodel transportation hub of light rail/commuter rail/High speed rail at Harbor Park.

That being said, I would like to continue this conversation via email, I would like to be able to send you a few of my research papers in urban planning. The most recent final paper I completed was specifically about relocating the homeless shelter downtown away from downtown. (Yes, a method of "shifting the poor").

I have to admit that your comment on whether you believed I was even a student of urban planning did get me a little fired up at first, so I feel it may be best to take this conversation to email. [email protected]

I have long respected many of your comments on urban planet, and tend to refrain the majority of my criticisms for good conversation purposes. But we do disagree either on our language or possible on our morals/ethics. I'm Matt by the way....nice to meet cha!!!

[varider]

I think a major thing Downtown could use is improved connectivity and more organized "flow".. More green areas would help as well. One thing I noticed about Richmond is Downtown feels connected. Downtown Norfolk, I can't say the same. Mac Center is in it's own world. Granby Street is it's own area. Waterside is a different area. The point is Downtown is not connected well. If it were up to me, I would restructure the street grid (as Norfolk is planning on doing), More infill projects with vibrant street level (there is this one parking lot next to the Courtyard, Granby Tower, Snyder Lot or whatever, Those small parking lots around Granby Street), give companies incentives to relocate to Norfolk, more fast food chains, more cute little parks where office building workers can walk through, chat, and eat their lunch, and last but not least, set up some street vendors to increase foot traffic.. I can't wait to see Norfolk in 10 years.

[brikkman]

opps, that was meant to read, "it makes it hard for me to believe that you could think like this being in urban planning." I wasnt questioning your schooling, I was questioning your outlook towards urban planning and was referencing it to me being an architecture student and going to a college that has an amazing urban planning department.

I will send you an email later this weekend, have a paper to write and a resume to update. But if you want, you are welcome to email me at [email protected], and my name is dennis, and it has been a pleasure chatting and debating with you over these years.

But I do hope you see the point that I am trying to make, I am a strong believer in standing up for those who may not have the means to stand up for themselves. I am also a strong believer in judging a city, state, and country by how it chooses to handle its poorest people. Also, you have to agree how racist it would seem for the city if they told everyone that lived in Tidewater Gardens to get the hell out and find a new home cause the city needs the land to make lots of money...I would guess the riot that would probably happen afterward would be bad publicity for the city.

Though I am still curious to hear your answers to my questions because lots of things sound great on paper (most interstate plans for cities), but in reality destroy important historical and social areas (most interstates that were built in cities). Not everything that comes out of urban planning is a good idea, and cities are not about number crunching and just about tax profits.

Which I am more than happy to continue this debate with you...hell we could even start another thread that just focused on this back and forth conversation, but I will definitely be standing by the idea of defending the poor...which I agree that the current living conditions should not be like what they are in Tidewater Gardens and that the redeveloping of St Paul will probably force some of the current residents to move elsewhere (which will happen because of a number of reasons...some people dont like living in dense urban areas.)

But the big question is why couldnt St Paul handle some of these lost units? we are talking about 100 acres of land to develop. Also if the city is to disperse and decentralize it poverty stricken areas, then just about all the neighborhoods in Norfolk would have to take in a number of low income housing...which I dont think should be this model of temporary housing, but rather models that involve land trusts, new home owners, education grants, job training, and such...just because someone falls below the poverty line, doesnt make them useless to the city. Heck, we are just talking about a chunk of land next to downtown, I havent even begun to talk about what they should be doing with the rest of their neighborhoods, especially Oceanview.

[urbanlife]

I'm trying to get behind you man, but I just can't understand your total vision. It seems as though you address SPQ as the last place that needs fixing and we should take this opportunity to fix this, the only that is wrong. A lot of us see DT bigger or at least given the opportunity to be bigger. This plan closes that idea in my opinion. Maybe you need to talk a little more about how to extend DT or was this your all inclusive debate?