I miss RVA

This is exactly why Richmond isn't taken seriously as a "major" city. The last time I was in Charlotte I was chit-chatting with some locals and mentioned I was from Richmond. They laughed and said something to the effect of what a "cute" town Richmond is and welcomed me to "the big time" (as in Charlotte). They shut up when i told them I live in Chicago and visited Charlotte to "get away from the big city". celtic - please enlighten me on how other cities manage to build high-capacity, state-of-the-art arenas without a Daddy Warbucks great uncle to leave them a fortune and not pony up a penny of public money. What's their secret? VERY few (if any) cities have a Jerry Jones or a late Jack Kent Cooke (peace be upon him) to personally finance large arena/stadium projects with their own money. And how many cities have major arenas or stadiums that are fully privately funded? The number of deep pockets like Jerry Jones or the late Jack Kent Cooke are extremely few and far between.

It's definitely worth some research. An anti-density candidate for mayor is NOT what Richmond needs. We need leadership that will ramp down on the gas pedal for development with both feet. When it comes to these kinds of projects and the positive impact they have on the city, in this case, bigger IS better.

YES!!!! City Council approved the Broad and Lombardy residential project. Vote was 7-2. Any surprise that Grey and Trammel voted no? Grey is quoted as saying that just because someone has a problem with the density doesn't mean they are anti-growth. Didn't the question of Grey's anti-density position come up here for discussion recently? Is there any way to research her voting record on high-density projects and see if she is quoted as questioning/opposing the density? Someone wanted citation of examples of her position on density. Tonight's quote is Exhibit A. https://www.richmond.com/news/local/proposal-for--story-apartment-tower-at-broad-and-lombardy/article_908a662c-bf28-5716-86b5-d7e00aa1f915.html

Here's the Times-Dispatch's story. https://www.richmond.com/news/local/developer-seeks-to-buy-navy-hill-land-from-richmond-and/article_7e0209ad-8d4f-5a87-8664-14d3a9dc778c.html

celtic - this offer is hardly encouraging. As for low ball - it's not just financially low ball, it's low ball in scope. REFURBISH the Coliseum? That pile of rubbish needs to be replaced. Let me spell it out - R -E - P - L - A - C - E - D. Period, full-stop. Anything less is unacceptable. I hope it gets laughed off the table. It's a better offer only according to the typical old-school Richmond mindset - "If it HAS to be done (and we don't think it has to be done) better to get it done CHEAP than to have it done RIGHT." It's awful for the city and frankly should be rejected out of hand on general principle.

BUT THE SCHOO... oh wait... DalWill - you said it - the existing coliseum needs to be broomed off the face of the earth and replaced by a MODERN, state-of-the-art 18,000-seat palace. I know... dream on, right? And exactly WHAT is the deal with Stephanie Lynch even suggesting there is a question as to "whether Richmond should be an arena city" ?? Is she on drugs? For Christ's sake...

I face-palmed reading the richmond biz sense story.

You're secret is safe with me.

How 'bout the save our souls excuse?

Beautiful! What an amazing transformation of that district. As these projects rise and come on line over the next couple of years, I'd love to see some short-film footage from a drone cruising through Scotts Addition to give us a nice overview of the new developments. I'm so glad to see the emphasis on true urban development with plenty of density, no wasted space and emphasis in many cases on verticality. This part of town is really rocking!

Fantastic!! That's a great location for Hyatt to have a presence -- and a beautiful building to boot.

I grew up on Forest Hill Avenue about 2 miles west of that intersection. There used to be a traffic light at the point where Semmes and Forest Hill meet. It sucked back then. LOL Looking at the photo, I seem to recall there used to be a building in the wedge-shaped lot right at the point. Wonder how long that's been gone?

Richmond and Henrico wanted the eastern route that would have followed the path taken now by the John Rolfe Parkway. The problem was that so much development had occurred in Chesterfield that it would have been difficult (likely costly) to turn 288 back inward to cross the river and line up with where the Rolfe goes now. Even if the beltway would not have cut through subdivisions, my guess is that it would have come close enough that the NIMBYs were out in force in Chesterfield so their quiet suburban existence wouldn't be disturbed by a major highway. From the land standpoint, it was likely easier and cheaper to just keep the path west, where there was no dense development at the time. It's crazy how the "makeup" for the lack of a 288-295 connection south of the city ended up being the 895 extension of Chippenham Parkway to I-295 near the airport. Given how Chippenham is a standard freeway from the Willey Bridge to the 295 exit, it gives Richmond an "inner loop" so to speak - again of a half beltway. Still this was the best idea of the bunch because it was badly needed. Until I moved to the Midwest 20 years ago, I worked just a mile or two north of the 895/95/Chippenham exchange. It was pretty cool to drive through that area and see the new highway as it was being built. Lots of half beltways built around the metro.

UPDATE on the new Broad/Lombardy residential project: the City Planning Commission has given its whole-hearted support! Grateful that there appeared to be only minimal NIMBY pushback. Public hearing prior to the next City Council meeting - might not be a bad idea if anyone available to show up and speak in favor does so. https://www.richmond.com/news/local/planning-commission-advances--story-broad-street-project-over-neighbors/article_de595670-9c3a-51ce-ab6e-1df5ed628268.html Great comment from Vik Murthy: "we need to have towers". Check out this excerpt from the RTD: The building is significantly taller than nearby structures; commission member Vik Murthy said increasing density will help keep housing options abundant and affordable.“We need to have towers. The only way we’re creating affordability, unless we’re subsidizing affordability, is to create capacity and the only way to do it is go up,” Murthy said. He said the location is perfect to anchor the large scale projects the city had in mind when it proposed the 7.6-mile Pulse bus rapid transit corridor. Now THAT's the kind of progressive thinking I've been talking about!!

How long before the preachers will start up on their soapboxes about the "evils" of gambling? There are multiple categories of potential NIMBYs regarding THIS project, I'm afraid.

Whoops!! Someone didn't think THAT one out too well, did they!

The original I-295 route was planned as a 2/3 semi-circle from Falling Creek to Short Pump as part of the 1956 interstate highway system proposal. When the Federal Interstate Highway Act of 1968 was passed, expanding the interstate highway system by 1,500 miles nationally, the Commonwealth Transportation Board requested that five Virginia highway projects be included for federal funding, including extending I-295 from Short Pump to Falling Creek west and south of Richmond to complete a full beltway. The USDOT approved three projects: I-195 in Richmond, I-664 and the Berkley Bridge portion of I-264 in Hampton Roads. Additional funding for an extended I-295 was not approved. Thus, the state had to step in to plan and fund the project. As a result, 288 was developed significantly later than was I-295, and the southernmost segment was developed first. Due to differences in local laws regarding control of land for right of ways, Henrico was able to preserve the planned corridor extending south from I-295/I-64 in Short Pump. Chesterfield, however, was not able to control the right of way of the original planned route. A significant amount of residential growth and development had occurred along and within the originally proposed path during the years that followed the highway's planning. That said, the original route of the northern stretch had to be scuttled. As can be expected, Richmond, Henrico and Chesterfield fought over the adjusted path (Richmond and Henrico wanted 288 to link up cleanly and directly with I-295 at Short Pump). Ultimately the western route was selected and built. Of course, then came the "brilliant" idea to extend I-295 south past the Tri-Cities (instead of curving west to link up with 288 at Falling Creek) - so on a map Richmond's "beltway" looks like a convoluted "9" that was designed by a drunkard. Yet again ... regional cooperation at its best. (rolling eyes)

Icetera - really good information. Thanks for posting this!

Isn't the bill in conference committee? I recall reading the primary difference in the language was specific to the bidding process. One of the versions (Senate maybe?) specified open bidding, whereas the Pamunkey were mentioned specifically in the other version. I'm not sure how that translates to the city's involvement in the RFP process though.

All i can do is shake my head - LOL

Agreed. Henrico makes the most sense and would be a really good fit in a number of areas. OK -- another pie-in-the-sky just for fun question: let's assume Richmond and Henrico DID merge, a la Nashville. How would Chesterfield react? Particularly if the marriage proved to be working extremely well, would they want in as well? Or would they continue to balk?

Oh my how nice would this be for Richmond! Of course, Nashville only had one county to deal with - with Richmond, it's two. Snowballs have a better chance of surviving the Seventh Level than the Richmond metro does of doing something like this. But if it were to ever come to pass... For fun, let's assume ONE of the two counties agreed to merge. If only one county were to agree to join up - who do you think would do it? My best guess would be Henrico. The mindset is different from Chesterfield - plus the airport is in Henrico. And there's already more robust, established GRTC service in Henrico.

Whoops!! I KNEW 3 mil sounded a little low! Sorry 'bout that! Still ... when compared with 46 million ... the extra 1.25 million is almost a rounding error for CLT. (just kidding!) To an extent, yes Hampton Roads is really locked in - BUT they have done a very nice job of cooperating in a number of areas. Even being divided by the wide mouth of the James into an "upper" and "lower" Hampton Roads, that area has cohesiveness that the Richmond metro sorely needs. Mind you, they have their issues too. But dang it all - that area just seems to get things done!

Celtic - regarding the need for a regional approach and the hinderance of the independent city system: Understood and agreed 100%. That's been one of the biggest hangups from time immemorial. How and why the crafters of Virginia's state Constitution decided to segregate out cities from counties is the topic for another discussion. Suffice it to say, however, that it has been the bane of hopes for Richmond's growth as a region with every locality generally fighting for itself. Surprisingly, the independent city concept has worked in Baltimore and St. Louis - and the Tidewater region has figured out the basic premise of "a rising tide lifts all boats." But for Richmond? This, good sir, is another part of why I have serious doubts about Richmond ever living up to her potential. If there was a final nail in the coffin, it had to be the annexation of Chesterfield in 1970. As with seemingly everything in Richmond politics, racial issues were at the heart of the annexation, and it was deemed to be so egregious that the state slapped a permanent moratorium on annexation - and while court cases were being adjudicated, there were NO local elections in Richmond city for seven years. Thus, the 1977 City Council election was consequential as it ushered in a black-majority council for the first time in the city's history. The acrimony that followed for much of the next 10-plus years was beyond description. In looking back, I find it somewhat miraculous that the James Center was built in the early-mid '80s, given the political and business climate in Richmond. And even then, a downturn in the economy resulted in a scaling back of the project. The James Center we see today is NOT the complex that was originally proposed. There were originally to be two additional office towers (one of 40 stories) and two high-rise residential buildings (south of the main row of office buildings). Those four structures were the victim of the economy. To your point about regional infrastructure: absolutely it is a critical component of a region's cohesive and sustained growth. That there is the small level of GRTC service in the counties is quite remarkable, given the attitudes long-since voiced toward blocking it. Chesterfield has been the worst offender. My mother (peace be upon her) used to lament constantly about how particularly Chesterfield blocked transit service because, as was voiced by folks in her social circle, the county's attitude was "we don't want the riff-raff from Richmond coming out here." Doesn't take a rocket scientist to decode what THAT meant. (dog-whistles, anyone?) Meanwhile, Charlotte has been merrily gobbling up swaths of Mecklenburg county for decades - and generally to the benefit of that entire region. But annexation explains only a part of why their population has grown so explosively. As you mentioned, the 1978 expansion of Charlotte-Douglas was the key that unlocked the box of urban Miracle Grow. But want to know something? RICHMOND had first crack at landing the Piedmont Airlines hub that kicked everything off for Charlotte. Piedmont looked long and hard at Richmond and was quite interested in putting its hub here, given the Eastern Seaboard location and centrality in the mid-Atlantic region. BUT... good ol' lack of regional "let's come together and make this happen" and a heaping sum of "but the schools" fiscal conservatism (sound familiar?) won the day. No one was willing to pay for the one thing a hub airport needs - parallel runways - much less expansion of the terminal. So in essence, Richmond told Piedmont "thanks, but no thanks. We'll be just fine." The rest, as we know, is history. Meanwhile, we celebrate RIC topping 3 million passengers in a year ... while CLT is clocking in at 46 million passengers a year. Again ... it could have -- and SHOULD HAVE - been us!!

Celtic and wrldcoupe4 - if this is the case, then what is Malcolm Randolph pointing to?