Norfolk4Life

If one of the most costly parts of a VB light real would be the overpasses, why not keep the LRT at grade and lower the road? Just like monticello ave, hampton blvd, brambleton blvd, and the new project by NIT. It has to be cheaper to lower the road given the approach distance to raise a rail line

wtf? I think the bottom floor was still the pub but most people don't want to go to a bar that is also a gay bar. Looks bad on the city though. If it was ok to have the pub on the second floor, why is it illegal to change format? Same owners. Same business.

I think an arcade downtown would make a fortune. People are always looking for one by the mall and with no jillians, there is nothing downtown

A couple of unique views that I like but most people never notice. Full Size -http://www.panoramio.com/photo/50214265 Full Size -http://www.panoramio.com/photo/50214011 Full Size -http://www.panoramio.com/photo/50213992

The stations are coming along nicely. Full Size -http://www.panoramio.com/photo/50215152 Full Size -http://www.panoramio.com/photo/50214504 Full Size -http://www.panoramio.com/photo/50214569 Full Size -http://www.panoramio.com/photo/50215566

The only way I would support a one way street there is if monticello were one way in the opposite direction AND light rail was split between the two going in the same direction as the traffic. This would allow for traffic flow, wider sidewalks on monticello, and on-street parking

Both the ideas of lowering parking rates and removing on-street parking are completely contrary to the goal of having a pedestrian friendly areas. lower parking rates would mean more people would drive in instead of parking for free at a place like the new Newtown light real station and riding in. This would hinder our prospects of light rail. Additionally, when people ride in on transit they are more likely to stay a while than if they had convenient access to their car. As for the on-street parking, don't touch it. Its a basic planning technique. On-street parking makes the sidewalk feel safer. No parking on the street means people don't want to walk there. Also, on-street parking slows cars down. People naturally drive slower when they are afraid a door will open our a person will walk or from between two cars. No on-street parking means faster traffic which means fewer walkers. But you still need the cars. Closing the street to cars has failed before because it makes it feel deserted and leads to higher crime. This is one case where I will say that business owners need to stick to running their businesses and leave the planning to people who can plan. I am not making this up. Go borrow a planning guide for planning for planning a pedestrian friendly area.

ii think it will be for the better and I don't think they will have much trouble filling the spaces. As for the stores, they seem to be filling their places. If you keep a keen eye out you can see that they have to have some stores close so that others can expand and remodel. In fact, there does not appear to be many truly vacant spaces.

it is a redevelopment project through NRHA > http://www.nrha.norfolk.va.us/redevelopment/neighborhoods/south-brambleton

I think its just part of the city's regular land acquisition program. The city shows that all that land is owned by NRHA. The only place not owned by the city over there is the house on Park Ave. I am sure that will be purchased as soon as the owner sells. Its one of the city's target areas so they purchase all available land to make save land for future development.

last october, when I visited Portland, OR, I noticed that their transit stops were clean and almost new looking. The reason? There were signs on everything that said it was a felony to deface transit property or to harass or assault transit employees. Thats what we need here. We need that here. It should be posted everywhere. We could get some wireless cameras to move around between the most vandalized areas and see if we cant catch some people.

p.s. speaking of that website, if you missed it last year, i found a copy of it online at http://www.multiupload.com/NZVOJJCQ2B even though, theres no real hard evidence for anything on there, it does raise some intriguing questions.

http://hamptonroads.com/2011/01/developers-ask-norfolk-financial-safety-net this project keeps asking the city for more and more. if not for the city, it would not be built. brings back memories of that anti-burfoot website that was up last may.

people often cite Portland as an example of a great urban city. They apparently looked just like Norfolk in the 1970s. although they had more city blocks (but only because Norfolk had already demolished them for public housing fields), notice the number of vacant lots (whole city blocks) and the large imposing highway that covers the waterfront of Downtown. When you look at Norfolk, remember that large roads like Tidewater Dr, Waterside Dr, etc. were built over an existing grid. Norfolk's grid extended through all of the public housing and surrounding areas. Before 'urban renewal' Norfolk's street pattern had been nearly unchanged since it was layed out originally.

then we need to call our representatives and show them that investment in mass transportation is the only one the truly creates wealth for our state. highway construction will ALWAYS lead to the need for more highway construction and will drain the wealth of our region and state by forcing the expenditure of money on oil-related (oil, gasoline, asphalt, etc.) products: all of which leave the state. mass transit money stays in our region and allows users to keep more of their money.