VBIllini13

I don't know how the weather is down there, or if you like walking, but you could park in West Ghent and walk. It's pretty far from downtown, but it's free.

Score! Saw this article hidden away in the deep depths of pilotonline.com. I'm just loving these NIMBY comments and the reference to Mr. Hoffler. http://hamptonroads.com/2010/05/virginia-beach-expands-development-office

Technically, we do, it's just only celebrated this one time of the year. Soldiers, officers, and employees of NATO live throughout Hampton Roads. Back in high school, I hung out with a group of guys that consisted of me and another American, a French-Canadian, and a German. The Azalea festival is the only celebration in the United States that celebrates the international presence of European allies and NATO member countries. Although I like the fact that I live near and went to school with these foreign kids and their families, I would like to see more of their culture in the form of music festivals, restaurants, and shops in Norfolk or Virginia Beach.

There's absolutely demand for anything that involves football, especially in this area. This project is actually one of the few projects that shouldn't have a problem getting approved because they could use ticket proceeds to pay for the expansion.

I could definitely see one popping up in the northern part of the state, actually. In Illinois, there are a few casinos either already built or planned in the Chicago suburbs (Aurora, Des Plaines). NoVA (notably Alexandria) is liberal enough where they would, possibly, be in favor of having a casino. Having said that, I agree with you that many NIMBYs from Virginia Beach, Chesapeake, suburban Norfolk, and just about everywhere else would be against a casino.

It's working pretty well in St. Louis. If crime can be controlled and security maximized, it can be a very safe business venture. Indian reservations that have casinos on their lands actually have some of the lowest crime rates in the nation.

Those are excellent points! Another reason I want the extension to go to the airport first before the naval station is that ridership would only be high (or even existent at all) on that segment in the morning and evening during rush hour. For the airport, there would more likely be a constant flow of riders using the line to go to the airport and other destinations along the line.

Not quite, in a way Medicaid and Medicare firms compete with the actual government-run program. People were worried earlier during the healthcare debate that private insurance companies would be competing with a public option, which would make for unfair competition, but what many people don't realize is that Medicaid and Medicare firms already compete with a public option. I think it's mostly just an alternative to the actual Medicaid program.

I'm pretty ambivalent about road privatization. Long ago, public transportation and rail transportation were all privatized, but because of the rapid shift from streetcar to bus to car (with a big thanks to GM and the United States breaking up their trust after it was too late), local, state and federal governments bought and now oversee public transportation. Roads are odd because many people believe it is something that only the government should build and regulate. But then there's another question to be asked, if cars are sold by private companies, why can't roads be built by private firms? There are pros and cons to both arguments. Pros of private firms building roads and highways includes better quality roads and better upkeep of them. Cons include high tolls and they restrict access to lower income drivers and buses (in some cases) who already pay for insurance, gas, and other necessities that come with owning a car. Pros of government-constructed roads include cheaper tolls if any at all. Cons include higher taxes levied on gas and local taxes to pay for road construction and poor maintenance of the roads (as evident on I-264). Honestly, you couldn't really go wrong with either, and we haven't really had any private roads built in the area, so let's see what happens with this project and then see if this is a good idea or not.

Amerigroup is a Medicaid firm. Nothing wrong with the company's mission, but apparently their past leadership wasn't too great...

booooooooo. may the company fail and nobody care.

HA good one

Sometimes when the facts are right in front of you, you have to learn to accept them and take them for what they are worth. I said that the Planning Director of Norfolk said that we could not sustain a major pro team. Our media market is not big enough. You can refuse to believe that population and economic support doesn't have anything to do with the location of a pro team all you want, but you give me the name of one city that doesn't You'll find that the only city that has such a team and fits those qualifications is the City of Green Bay. The Packers are still there for the reasons that the city won't sell them and fans are willing to drive up from Milwaukee to go see them. Yes Hampton Roads has many businesses located here, but what makes you think that they would even consider sponsoring a team here? Amerigroup's greedy executives wouldn't even give the thought the time of day, and Northrup Grumman wouldn't have any need to sponsor a team. So let me ask you this varider, how many fans do you think Norfolk could get if we did get an MLB team? The Nationals and Orioles average around 25,000-30,000 fans each game. You may not think minor league attendance isn't indicative at all of major league attendance, but you can bet it is. And don't call my Tides a joke... You can't just turn a blind eye tom what our metro currently lacks. Just because you live here doesn't mean some team owner is one day gonna decide to move a team here. So many factors are taken into account, and most of it is purely economic. A few corporate sponsors wouldn't be enough to support a major team. Plus, the NHL really isn't even that big of a sport in Virginia or across the country. They have no major network contracts and isn't popular at all outside of Chicago and the northeast. Again, look at the truth and accept it and learn from it. (oh and the greater Hampton Roads area is the Peninsula by the way)

We are in no way able to support a major league pro team. Just over 5,000 fans is not indicative of NHL attendance and, like I've said before, this METRO does not have the economic base (corporate support), local interest, or infrastructure ability to support a pro team. Maybe in 30 or more years we'd be able to get one, but it's absolutely out of the question right now for Norfolk. My parents were at the Tides game tonight and they said that attendance was nowhere near where it was last night. Two factors must be taken into account to get a pro team: an economic base (cities like Oakland, Salt Lake City, and Indianapolis have strong corporate support, not necessarily population) and population (cities like Jacksonville, San Antonio, and San Jose have population, but not necessarily a great economic base). Norfolk and Hampton Roads simply do not have the market for a pro team, and that is quoting the Planning Director of Norfolk. Additionally, Norfolk only has one major public business' corporate headquarters located in the city. The shipping companies simply do not have the need to sponsor pro teams, nor do they have the money to do so. A pro team, as of now, is only a far off dream that Norfolk won't get unless, by some G-d given miracle, some extremely rich, powerful, and influential individual purchases a dying major league team and strongly convinces the stakeholders to approve the relocation of that team, and even then it would be unlikely. Sorry for the this, but sometimes it's good for a reality check.

BEAT DURHAM!!

I don't know if that's true or not because I'm not from Norfolk and I haven't been questioned by the cops, but of all the white people I know in Norfolk and all the white people I know in Virginia Beach, Virginia Beach has more trailer trash and rednecks. The light rail stop near Lynnhaven/S. Plaza Trail, if HRT extends the line, will probably even add some affluence to the area. My hairdresser's old boss is in need of a little diversity. She has said numerous times derogatory names for blacks and told my hairdresser (who had just cut a black woman's hair) to never let a person "like that" in her salon again. Even if non-white Norfolk residents "invade" Virginia Beach, the diversity added would benefit people like that. The effect on crime, I think, would be minimal, but then again I have no facts to base that opinion on.

You are joking, right? That statement has absolutely no validity or truth to it whatsoever. The Navy loves Hampton Roads for so many reasons, the biggest one being we have one of the world's deepest and largest natural harbors. Those stationed at bases in Hampton Roads like it because of its proximity to the beach. The Department of Defense likes the region because of its strategic location on the eastern seaboard. USJFCOM and NATO's North American headquarters are both located in Hampton Roads. The military will work around us and accomodate regional decisions long before they even consider moving away. We need the military just as much as they need us. I still don't get where you got the idea that the military is "looking for a reason" to leave the area.

nevermind

There are multinucleated polycentric metropolitan areas in the US if that's what you're asking. Some notable examples are Minneapolis-St. Paul, Akron-Canton, Albany-Schnectady, Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill, Alanton-Bethlehem, Scranton-Wilkes-Barre, and my personal favorite: Fayetteville-Springdale-Rogers-Bentonville. Going smaller, there's also Gulfport-Biloxi and Champaign-Urbana (GO ILLINI!). While, just about all of these metros have a twin city relationship, they still disperse population and companies between each other. Your question was regarding rail transit and these metros. Minneapolis-St. Paul I know has rail transit, and Raleigh-Durham conducted a study on it but decided it wasn't feasible or something like that. Fayetteville, AR will probably get some form of public rail transit in the near future because of its exponential growth, booming economy, and location. Champaign may also eventually get transit because of the University of Illinois. Many planning grad students here conduct studies and draw up plans for better transportation around the area, and because the campus, downtown Champaign, and downtown Urbana are so close to each other, rail would have an almost straight path connecting the 3 nodes.

I agree completely 100% with that statement. No farms no food - agriculture is the backbone of the American economy and I love the fact that Virginia Beach is virtually self-sufficient on strawberries and soy and is a major producer of corn and other crops as well. I love open spaces, but we can't just completely urbanize America. My dad always jokes with me by saying we should just pave over the entire United States. It's a joke, but in some ways that's what I think some new urbanists want. New Urbanist developments that exist in former suburbs just add to the existing sprawl, leading to more automobile dependence and in some cases even newer suburbs. This takes away even more pristine and agricultural lands and is somewhat counter-intuitive. If planners can limit suburban growth and have designated areas for urban, suburban, rural, and pristine areas, then I believe we will not only make everyone happy, but reach a perfect equilibrium of each area. If suburbs are redeveloped to be newer and nicer, then people will stay put rather than sprawl farther onto "virgin" land.

I like Chesapeake. All metros need suburbs, and that is exactly what Chesapeake is. They cannot make Chesapeake something that it's not. The only reason Chesapeake has all of it's citizens is because they wanted to live out there. People will always want to live in suburbia and planners can't change nor force how those people think. Density is something that's just not for a city like Chesapeake; density would take way the appeal of living in a city like Chesapeake. It is solely because Chesapeake is so suburban, nice, and new that I like it. I used to get so excited for Home-a-rama when I was back home because I got to see the huge houses in an extremely low-density environment. I'm not gonna keep rambling on restating my point, but planners in Chesapeake should focus more on agricultural and wildlife preservation and suburban redevelopment of run-down areas and less on forcing an urban environment on a suburb.

As much as all that demolition sucks, imagine being a city leader or planner at that time and having the opportunity to develop all of that "virgin" land with the urbanist principles of the time. Yes, some of the effects may have been counter-intuitive, but they were given an opportunity that planners and developers still to this day would absolutely die for.

Actually, according to Rick Henn, Norfolk's Senior Projects Analysts, as of last summer (so I don't know if they still are) the city is in talks with a possible 3rd anchor for MacArthur Center. He didn't go into much detail as to whom it might be, but he didn't play off the possibility of an urban Best Buy when I asked him about it. It could still be anything though... In response to why Downtown is so small, it's because it historically has been that small and before urban renewal it wasn't too much bigger. You basically only had what is now Harbor Park and the parking lots and garages to the east of city hall added to downtown pre-urban renewal. East of that is heavy industry, west is freemason and ghent, and north and northeast was slums and has been either redeveloped into something else or rebuilt as lower income housing.

Well I guess I won't then... saved me from driving a few extra miles

I'm coming home for spring break this weekend and I usually drive on Bonney to get to the Best Buy or to the JCC if the highway's too backed up, so I'll try driving by and give y'all an update.