mistermetaj
-
Posts
851 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Project Database
User Guide
Store
Events
Posts posted by mistermetaj
-
-
On 5/6/2023 at 3:40 AM, mintscraft56 said:
I have a idea, reduce 4 lanes into 2 lanes
I don't think you need to reduce Waterside down to 2 lanes. Considering the limited public transit options into Norfolk (no lightrail) and the fact it's the entry off of 264 to enter the city, it would really make arrival inconvenient for anyone outside of Norfolk.
However, there are ways to make it a little slower and more pedestrian friendly (It's really not that bad). Some options:
- Building out the sidewalk by Dominion Tower (BoA now) and add a second cross walk on St Paul across Waterside
- Add a traffic light (make sure it's synchronized appropriately with the rest of the lights on Waterside) and add double crosswalks at Commercial St across Waterside
- Add a second crosswalk on Atlantic st across Waterside
- Add a second crosswalk on Martins Ln across Waterside
- Beautify the median on Waterside with commissioned art, more trees, and flowers (give a strong civic and cultural feel to Norfolk, and if room widen it. Waterside had the cache as the entry point of Norfolk to be a premier avenue, rather than just a thoroughfare
In terms of Gravity 400, while I don't love these building types, it is excellent landfill, filling another gap in Norfolk streetscape and bringing people back downtown. Norfolk is still recovering from the 60s destruction, and now COVID. This is another wound healed. There are plenty of spots in the city that could use more of this.
-
2
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Arctic_Tern said:
Why do people keep calling it Ghent like? Cause it has 2-4 story townhouses? Behind those houses are oceans of parking lots that ruin the urban fabric that Ghent is able to make. Think less Ghent and more Suffolk
As long as the parking is centered in the block and hidden behind the buildings, then it will have a good urban character. I'm not calling it a perfect development but we should at least be happy with what it is replacing.
-
4
-
-
On 3/20/2023 at 8:25 PM, mintscraft56 said:
Annnnd, to complete the saga, they finally say that they wont do crap till years later.
Folks, this project in my eyes, Is Over.
It was a good run. Portsmouth beat us, and all the excitement died along with this slow and unorganized project.
There is nothing to look forward to. St Pauls turned into a glob of suburban houses, They dont even know what they are going to do for Military circle, McArthur remains debated, The light rail is years behind and seemingly going to stay that way, and to top it all off, Our biggest project yet had finally died.I think we have finally killed any hopes off.
I agree, it's mostly negativity these days, but St Paul has a chance to become a Ghent like neighborhood next to downtown. It's a significant, and mostly urban upgrade over Tidewater Gardens. It's not the mass development we all wanted when it was first proposed years ago, but it's a net addition overall, and shouldn't be listed with failures like McArthur and the casino.
-
2
-
-
The first thing Norfolk needs to do to revitalize downtown is bring in a grocery store. Walkable and accessible groceries is table stakes for any urban area that wants to attract and maintain people, and it's been lacking downtown for far too long.
-
1
-
-
I've never seen a company put so much effort into a video for such a generic building. This is as milk toast an apartment complex as it gets.
-
2
-
-
17 hours ago, Lluck002 said:
Modern Planning is committed to fighting the wrongs of the past that were caused by previous Planners. A ton of inequities that exist today are due to how the built environment was structured in the Twentieth Century. I’m a huge proponent of Advocacy Planning. Urban Planning is all-encompassing and is literally social engineering through design and policy if you think about it.
I’m not saying that old white men’s needs are unimportant, but we need to understand that they’ve been getting their way and stepping on disenfranchised communities in the process. We must have a greater focus on communities which were ignored for so long to break cycles of poverty and lack of opportunity. Yes, local elected leaders enact policy, but Planners help develop it based on our expertise. And with Virginia Beach in particular, the current City Council makeup is NOT representative of the population, hence why the City was taken to the Supreme Court for violating the Voting Rights Act of 1965. I respect elder Planners but know that your education is outdated, and you’d see that if you take a new AICP Certification Exam. We are not to just pander to developers any longer; we are to truly serve The People and The Greater Good. I know y’all see me as a young, ambitious, naive Planner, but that just proves my point that many fighting me on this are out of touch with how the field has evolved. This isn’t supposed to be confrontational, so I do apologize that it may sound that way.
That said, I attended and helped host one of the recent Tide Light Rail Extension Public Input Workshops and the turnout was good and everyone, old, young, white, black, gay, straight, had very positive things to say about it!
I'm not a planner so I don't know what advocacy planning is. Where does urban planning end and advocacy begin? If you're advocacy planning, is your goal for the betterment of the whole community, or only the groups by which you view as disenfranchised and protected? How does the role of an advocacy planner change once the guidelines for a plot of land or area is set?
I understand goals to remove segregation barriers like highways that split socioeconomic and racial groups, fight the effect of redlining, and build low income or affordable housing requirements into zoning guidelines. But I fail to see how any of those apply to this plot where developers made a pitch in compliance with the RFP. Yes, Bruce Thompson's plan is a disappointment. I hope it's not picked. But some of what you wrote makes me think it's less you hope IT (the proposal) is not picked and more you hope HE isn't picked.
Id be careful building an us vs them viewpoint based on immutable characteristics of a group of people. Usually those groups are not nearly as monolithic as you think they are and you risk becoming (or at least sounding like) that which you are working against.
-
1
-
-
In my view, planners are most effective when focusing on zoning (residential, commercial, mixed use, etc), transportation, architectural guidelines, and laying out the vision for the city.
If a developer meets all the city requirements for the land they want to develop, then I don't care what an "old white man" or a "black lesbian" resident thinks. City officials were elected to take care of that and represent the people who elected them. Every development can't/won't cater to the oldest, youngest, or most diverse. Developers, by their very nature, will build what they think will generate profits.
In the case of this redevelopment, the city needs to come to the table with a vision. If that vision includes city investment and a stadium or creating a landmark for Norfolk, then show Bruce Thompson the door. But if the goal is minimal city investment and quick tax gains, then he is probably the right choice. But at the end of the day, it's not about residential input, but electing leaders to represent your needs and push your vision of the city.
-
2
-
1
-
-
5 hours ago, baobabs727 said:
I don't "hate" grids. You guys are just kinda, sorta--nay, truly--obsessed with grids. As if they're the Holy Grail lol! And gosh, I think I'll continue to "convey my message" and sentiments in my own way. Ya think? Yeah, I think...I've earned that right after posting here for all of 17 years (as would anyone equally earn that right after posting here for even 1 minute!). As to your second paragraph, great! We agree...except for the part about y'all accepting anything other than the orthogonal grid replete with purely rectilinear streets. BTW, NYC is kinda scary atm...crime is way up...and people are standing with their derrieres planted firmly against the subway station wall waiting on the trains! Though I love that you mimicked our POTUS with the "come on, man!" :-)
Your accusation of anyone on here being "obsessed" with the grid is completely out of left field. You derived your conclusion of this board based off of one photoshopped image over a gigantic parking lot? I think you just read an article about an alternative to the grid and got so excited that you just had to proselytize, and decided this was your moment. You sound borderline manic, creating conflict that isn't there between your views and the board. As I said previously, you are overreaching to make a point no one is arguing against.
New York is definitely having a crime problem. We were talking about it being scary crossing the street. Nice, "nay" terrible straw man.
I guess you've never watched Monday Night Football or had a casual conversation with a friend if you think "come on man" was a nod to Biden. But duly noted for future use and how it might be taken. I've got no interest in expressing any politics, even tacitly, on a message board.
-
On 4/28/2022 at 1:20 PM, baobabs727 said:
Grid or bust, huh lol. Sigh. Indeed, there's definitely a certain womb-like comfort in conformity. And likely far better job prospects, too! I can't imagine anyone advocating against the street grid or even exploring alternatives during a municipal planner interview.
But back to Pembroke redevelopment. Let's not forget that redevelopment can be a thornier and more nuanced of a proposition than clean slate development, a la Short Pump in Richmond. I mean, I don't see any farm land on VB Blvd. Nay, Pembroke Square is 60 year old redevelopment project with long-standing, pre-existing leases which must preserved: translation--large buildings standing in the way of your grid approach. The owners have no choice but to work with what they've got because for now, at least, your alternative would be cost prohibitive. Because of course as in all development projects, but most especially with large projects in a tertiary or quaternary market such as our own, there does exist a little (big), inconvenient thing called economic feasibility. As a developer, one must be concerned with that which is actually economically feasible, not just with what sounds or looks exciting. Developers and lenders are risking their own money and rightly expect to see a return on investment. Budgets must be adhered to, design compromises made. This is the real world, not the stuff of ivory tower UP curricula. And, btw, it's not the UPs money that's at risk, now is it?
Unfortunately, and I don't mean to paint with a broad brush, most urban planners I've known have been rigid as hell and all pie in the sky. Little to no flexibility. Ideologically pure--and verrrrry proud of it. In fact, many UPs would rather see nothing built than recommend a development which doesn't fit within the vaunted street grid paradigm, for example (among many other preconceived tenants of modern UP... which, imo, often resemble the liturgy of a religion).
Back to grids.... By my estimation, even a blind monkey can draw an orthogonal grid. Not particularly creative. One grid looks like the next. One street looks like the next. One block looks like the next. One development.... You get the idea. No character, utter architectural blandness. And I totally disagree with you that grids necessarily produce optimal walkability. And that's not routinely their design intent, either. Nay, grids are often the product of civil engineers concerned with vehicular traffic flow.
By the way, you can call a grid "walkable," reflexively and ad nauseum, but that doesn't make it so. Ever tried crossing Broadway or Canal St. or dozens of other streets in NYC?? Scary proposition! Life-ending at times.
While I do like your idea of pedestrian-only alleyways and roadways within/on the grid, would you be able to name one neo-urban, town center type development here locally where there are roads within the street grid which were purpose-built and designated exclusively for pedestrian use?
Might you know of any Urban Planner who routinely or even sometimes rejects the rigid street grid overlay in favor of a more organic, natural, meandering, visually compelling street design which is actually laser-focused on walkability? And real sociability, too! Say with pedestrian pathways, ponds, public plazas, parks and softened angles ...all dictating vehicular traffic flow...rather than vehicular traffic engineering dictating pedestrian foot traffic? Please do visit London, Canberra, even SF. And please also do consider, even for a second, the possibility that...that which devoted followers of the street grid paradigm likely deem to be wrong-headed and purely contrarian by default...might actually be appropriate and even superior in certain circumstances. More creative. More human. And yes, more accretive to ROI. This is the real world, after all.
I'm really confused how the desire for a more connected Pembroke to Town Center, with the example of an overlayed street grid, turned into an - at this point diatribe - accusation of posters being grid zealots and conformists. You hate grids, we get it. But how you're conveying your message is an overreach.
No one on here would protest a street overlay that resembles the medieval European streets you are advocating for, or the planned mesh design that the article you linked proposes. What people want is walkability, connectivity, and a cohesive downtown that links Town Center and Pembroke. How you get there can take many forms. If that were to include plazas, fountains, sculptures, ponds, parks. Great. Who's arguing to the contrary?
As for your New York assessment of being "scary"..come on man...
-
3
-
-
1 hour ago, baobabs727 said:
My queries:
Utterly cost prohibitive? Not the best use of taxpayer dollars? Privately-owned land-devouring? Potentially visually boring and physically exhausting to the user, thus leading to reduced lingering time and diminished sales per sq. ft.?
Additionally, there is this:
" This approach [disrupting the imposition of the grid and rejecting pure linearity of layout] contradicts a train of thought that goes something like this: we want our retail-anchored mixed-use destinations to be lively; cities are lively; cities have grids, therefore a grid will create the liveliness of an urban district. But cities aren't lively because they have grids - they're lively because they have people."
(Selected text from: https://www.fieldpaoli.com/ideas/thinking-outside-the-grid by Yann Taylor, which I found to be a rather interesting read.)
It's an interesting article that you posted. Whether it's a grid as I superimposed over the site or a sort of "mesh" design as the article seems to be advocating for, the elements of walkability, connectivity, and density are still there. It's a tomAto - tomato kind of thing.
My issue with the Pembroke development as it is currently isn't the lack of an orthogonal grid as it is a lack of connectivity to town center. It feels wholly separated by both a large boulevard followed by a large amount of parking. A well connected midtown of any kind will need streets, sidewalks, cross walks, etc, so going to the Pembroke Mall area is more a visit to midtown Va Beach and less a visit to a faux urban Disneyland.
Regardless, I am beyond happy something is going on there with this kind of vision, I just hope the city is able to facilitate a broader more cohesive buildout over time.
-
2
-
-
On 4/19/2022 at 1:29 PM, vdogg said:
Unless this is a typo, it appears that the height of the apartments has grown somewhat (now 12-stories). I believe it was originally supposed to be an 8 or 9-story building. Below is a portion of the term sheet being voted on today.
I like the idea of bringing a more urban atmosphere and replacing the mall, but I don't see how this is going to integrate with Town Center and complete a cohesive urban fabric. We need roads and crosswalks across VA Beach blvd to connect this area. Right now, it feels like a town center next to Town Center. The city would have to make a large investment in this gridding, but I think it's as worth while an investment as a garage.
-
1
-
1
-
-
Hey all, apologies for the bump in this thread, but does anyone/could take some progress photos for block 19 and 20?
-
1
-
-
The more renderings I see, the less of the details I actually like, but that doesn't take away from the fact that it's filling in a massive parking lot and helping to push downtown Norfolk's urban footprint more north. This is one of the most important infill developments in the city.
-
4
-
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
This can't be built fast enough. Really healing the wound of a massive parking and setting the stage for redevelopment across Brambleton in the future.
-
5
-
My only issue is that they don't really seem to be gridding the area up and connecting it to town center. I hope they figure that part out at some point so it feels like a big connected area.
-
2 minutes ago, baobabs727 said:
Wow. As to your first paragraph, I “reject the notion, ” patently and unequivocally, of anyone expressly preempting or quashing any meaningful discussion on a topic simply because one happens to disagree with another board member.
Secondly, it would appear that elitism is alive and well in urban planning and community development circles. You see, it’s not about you or me or some academic white paper…or even a sometimes-lofty back-and-forth on an online development forum.
Nay, it’s all about the folks. And the folks have spoken. And the Council has their back. So adjust your worldview accordingly.
Additionally, I think perhaps you need to put some things into perspective here. This PC video presentation covered but a portion of TG redevelopment representing a scant percentage of the overall developable acreage in SPQ. So let’s take a wait-and-see approach before we talk about “GTF” out with this and “pathetic” that, shall we?
Finally, taste in architecture is quite personal. I see it as all perfectly fine. Nothing special, nothing particularly offensive. But you do realize that the budget here would never allow for phenomenal, groundbreaking design, right? Again, this is a neighborhood for the people, and it is sure as hell a tremendous improvement over what was there before. Now THAT was TRULY “cheap-looking” and “underwhelming.”
Exactly why there was no point in the having the conversation and why it wasn't going to be meaningful if we had it. You've now added "elitism" to the ledger followed up by saying how it's "not about you or me". Clearly the conversation we could have had would have digressed quickly into unnecessary mud slinging, as it seems to already have. I never said it was about you or me, and was happy to reject the notions you provided, while simultaneously realizing from your post there was no benefit taking that part any further. If you want the last word on it in future posts, you are welcome to have it.
I fully concede my views differ from the "folks...and City Council" as these renderings clearly show. That doesn't make any of this a good idea or require I adjust my worldview. Simply stated, i think what they are building right now is a mistake in its pseudo-urban form, function, and design. Limiting input to just the current community (if that is even what they did) when there is a goal of attracting a much broader community to the area is a mistake and limits potential now and in the future.
While this is only a percentage of the land, it's still multiple blocks and, along with the surface parking, remains everything I said about it in my previous post. Clearly there is enough intent behind this design to show us the direction they have chosen, and I find it pathetic. We've waited YEARS for this redevelopment and from what I see in these renderings, it's very disappointing.
Taste in architecture is personal no doubt. What you don't find offensive, I do. I expressed it just as you did. The budget didn't need to be huge to create a cohesive, brick centric, faux historical look, with small details design that invokes the history of Norfolk and create a sense of place. Even St. Paul's Apartments, which I'm sure were as low a budget at least tried to do that. Being just a step above 60s government housing is hardly a step above anything architecturally.
-
7 minutes ago, baobabs727 said:
I’m not sure I understand all the disgruntlement here. What were you expecting? Is it all about density for most of you…or is it about architecture? That’s not entirely clear from the comments, but I’m sensing it’s more about the density (or the perceived lack thereof).
And yes, of course they took “community input” into serious consideration. After all, it is their community, not ours. This is not a place most of us are going to visit on a weekly or monthly basis (that is unless you live there or someone you know lives there). For after all is said and done, this is a neighborhood. A real neighborhood for the people. And those residents said they didn’t want the Uber-density or the verticality (the two often go hand-in-hand). What they did want was some elements of classic architecture that would harken back to the history of the place. The design team likely forced some forward-looking buildings in there.
Truly, I don’t see all that much in the way of real, traditional design, at least none that is particularly staid or reproduction-oriented. It’s more transitional in nature. Clearly, the design team were aiming for an eclectic mix of styles and scale that would give the appearance of a neighborhood developing organically on its own …over many decades.
I think we look at this plot of land from such diametrically opposed views that it's not worth talking about some of those points you made. All I'll say is I reject the concept of "their community" and "real neighborhood" or having a handful of people's opinions serving as the standard for a plot of land 1/3 the size of all of downtown. This area represents much more than that for the small community that lives there now and the much larger community this is meant to attract in the future.
Per your question of density and architecture, why can't it be both? I've never been one to care much for height, but certainly believe the eradication of surface parking and having at least 4-6 story buildings goes a long way in building an urban fabric that is worth while. Detached townhouses with surface parking? GTF out of here with that kind of rendering for a downtown. It's pathetic.
In terms of architecture, whatever the design team attempted to do in these renderings, they failed. It's a hodgepodge of cheap looking apartments and bland sometimes standalone townhouses. There is nothing historic looking or forward-looking. It's unoriginal, in-cohesive, and underwhelming. There are plenty of buildings in the Freemason district and Ghent to get inspiration from, of what would add to and revive this land. They have fallen terribly short.
-
This update looks to be a consequence of too much community input and too much of the city trying to appease everyone.
If this is really the route St. Paul's is going to take, at least go all the way Ghent with it with faux historic brick colonial homes and apartment buildings. Give me columns and cornices. Give me a fake Old Town Alexandria. Revive the look of 1920-1940 Norfolk. Bring back hits history. Just please don't be the architecture we see in those renderings.
-
3
-
-
I like all the proposals. Greatly prefer the addition of full sized stadium, no matter which one is chosen.
The Wellness proposal is perfect for St Paul's Quadrant, and it's an absolute shame it's not planned there. Besides adding an arena, which would be near the casino, ball park, lightrail, and Amtrak, it also adds a strong community component around housing and education with YELLOW. There is no area that needs that more than St Pauls and no area riper for this kind of development.
-
3
-
-
2 hours ago, vdogg said:
This statement is said every time we have a building presented to us that starts tall and then is substantially reduced in height, which has happened with every single high rise that has been proposed in this area over the past decade. Every single one. I could understand this criticism if this only happened once or twice but every time? I think people are rightfully frustrated by the constant bait and switch. Height isn’t everything, that’s absolutely correct, but there’s nothing wrong with wanting at least one of these buildings to cross the finish line with their original height intact.
I understand the sentiment and felt it for many developments in Norfolk. This one specifically though is removed from downtown, so a tall building there now would almost make it awkward. It is however, eliminating an expansive parking lot, and hopefully attracting more to the area, where they will use Amtrak (bringing more service to Norfolk) and light rail to get to downtown. It looks pleasant and walkable in the renderings. There is too much to like about it for me to be upset over a substantial hair cut.
Long term, this might be the spur that generates high rise residential and mixed use developments on the other side of the ballpark, creating a brand new distinct district for Norfolk. That is ultimately what I am hoping for there.
-
3
-
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
Everyone is way too focused on height. Give me a development that interacts well with the street, is walkable, connected, and adds to the urban frabric of the city. This does all these things and will spur more developments around a ball park, casino, train, and lightrail stations. This is a net positive for Norfolk. We don't need height to enjoy what this will add to the city.
-
7
-
6 hours ago, Arctic_Tern said:
This is a bad take, in my opinion. You're pulling a couple of different issues together to throw up a straw-man progressive that I don't think really exists. The issue with public housing is not that public housing is inherently bad, it is that it is not supported or utilized correctly. Public housing, especially in Norfolk, is under funded, concentrated, and segregated. Why aren't the public housing communities better integrated into the fabric of the city, and why don't they receive better services? Why has it taken 60 years for Tidewater Gardens to be replaced? Why aren't there already new units for the current residents to move into? Like seriously, it's not like there's a dearth of demand for public housing, it's almost impossible to get on the waiting list there are so many that need it. Why didn't the city build more public housing, move the current residents there, and then redevelop St. Pauls to add more public housing stock for the city? They would have been able to avoid a lot of their current criticisms if they took that route.
I would also say that private led Section 8 housing is not the end-all-be-all solution that will fix all of our problems. Private apartment complexes are there to make a buck, and that clashes with public housing since most that need it don't have a ton of money. It is a useful tool in the public housing belt, but cities need to be careful in how they utilize and regulate private section 8 housing or else the residents are actually going to be in a much worse situation. Right now in Richmond they're having issues because Leasers have way too much control. They are able to jack up rents on poorly maintained properties with the threat of eviction if residents don't comply, and they face little if any repercussions whatsoever. And the Richmond Redevelopment and Housing Authority has shown very little desire to help.
And to be clear, yes gentrification is something that we need to be careful of. It forces out longtime residents and breaks up communities. And, as we all enough of urban development enthusiasts to frequent this site, we should be much more concerned with the development and protection of communities rather than ignore their potential erosion.
The intent of public housing was to be more akin to a halfway house, not a lifetime or multi-generational dwelling. The fact it has become a way of life to the point you refer to it as a community in need of protection shows the depth of the failure of public housing.
To your point of gentrification (not related to public housing per se), where do you draw the line between owner rights and non-owners or "community" rights?
-
2
-
-
I haven't watched the video, so I don't know what position they are taking. However, the title is "...Disrupt & Dismantle The Gentrification of Urban Communities"
This is why I have little to no faith that anything of significance will happen in Norfolk. St Paul's isn't an "urban community". It isn't a thriving or working class historically black neighborhood where a bunch of yuppies are moving in to their old apartment building and causing rent to shoot up (a la West Harlem). This is public housing. If these activists and the city aren't willing to distinguish between rundown public housing and true historically black neighborhoods, then this project is as good as dead IMO.
-
3
-
-
9 hours ago, NFKjeff said:
I disagree. I think the street grid can be restored (in part ) without razing 4,000 valuable parking spaces. I believe keeping those parking decks is key to attracting residential and office, and creating a reasonable retail mix.
They razed the large parking garage on the site of the Wells Fargo tower.
If the McArthur garage is an economic catalyst, it can be the last piece to be torn down, but it shouldn't be saved at the expense of connectivity and restoration of Norfolk's core.
On 3/2/2021 at 11:47 PM, Arctic_Tern said:
Thought this was interesting. I had seen renderings of a potential expansion of the glass blowing center, but haven't seen anything else about expansion of the museum itself. I thought the area that now has parking to the left was owned by EVMS though? And it looks like the parcel where the expanded glass blowing studio would go is where the current Norfolk Red Cross is. Not sure if that all is still in the cards.
I always thought Norfolk needed their version of a mall (a la Washington DC) connecting the museum to the opera house. This isn't quite what I had in mind, but hopefully it's a step towards a plan to link 2 of the most architecturally significant structures in Norfolk with a beautiful public space.
Virginia Beach off-topic
in Virginia Beach
Posted
Unfortunately I think it's relocating from Norfolk to Va Beach. Maybe there are a some extra jobs in the expansion hopefully.