creativeclass

Cadeho, excellent work. The photos illustrate nicely why West is significant to the cityscape. And wrldcoupe is right - legally, VCU can do whatever it wants with West. And in an earlier era it would just excute its plans, demolish the building, and put whatever bland box it wanted in its place. That could still happen, but VCU must realize that its local reputation will take a hit if it does not explain why the only feasible location for the new facility is on the site of West, and why West could not be adapted to other uses that would be useful to VCU - particularly housing.

You've got to be joking.

So because VCU has been a force for positive change, that justifies giving them a pass on any scrutiny of decisions that affect the community?

wrldcoupe4, you're right on target. West Hospital is an asset to the VCU community, and it could continue to be with just a minimum of imagination. Let me also say that as a VCU graduate, and with a famiily member currently attending VCU, that I'm proud of its accomplishments. I'm also a fan of the Brand Center. But at the same time, why can't I hold VCU to an even higher standard when it comes to listening to the community and encouraging positive change?

As one of the "whiners" who has opposed demolition of West Hospital since 2004, I suggest you start here to understand that oppositon to demolition didn't just materialize last week: Downtown's Demolition Blitzkreig! But also realize that VCU anticipated possible plans to save the West long ago, and acted proactively to mute and muzzle the potential opposition. By the early 90s, Dr. Trani was concerned that because West Hospital was eligible for individual listing on the Virginia Landmarks Register by the State Review Board (determined at its June 1986 meeting), and VCU might not be able to remake the MCV campus with the widest possible latitude. So Trani and the Department of Historic Resources entered into a Memorandum of Agreement in March 1992 which stated that DHR would not initiate efforts to nominate West Hospital, and other eligible building on the MCV campus, to the Register. The stated reasoning was that MCV / VCU buildings were "unsuitable for renovation or rehabilitation for use as wet laboratory and related instructional, administrative, support facilities, and patient care facilities." On this basis, DHR and MCV / VCU entered into the agreement which basically gives the college carte blanche to execute its plans. The agreement was executed in a different era. In the 90s, VCU could have bulldozed everything and constructed whatever it wanted. After all, city residents were used to being told what was best for them. Who cares that West was "the crowning monument of a complex of buildings" (according to Ed Slipek) who goies on to describe West as "perfectly detailed, it is polite and visually rewarding from the sidewalk level and packs tremendous wallop when seen from afar." Richmond residents, via the charette / Master Plan discussion process, have experienced an awakening. No longer will we uncritically accept the decisions made by an elite few. Let's discuss options before making an unrevocable decision!

Shak, no one disputes VCU's continuing need for world-class facilities. What's at issue is whether new world-class labs and classrooms MUST replace the West or can be constructed nearby, and whether West can be adapted to other uses in an economic manner. Also at issue is whether these important decisions should be made solely by VCU administrators or whether the general public has a legitimate interest in saving a landmark building, as VCU is a state-supported school. In the past, Richmonders have been quite content to let a few powerful individuals decide things; the charette process and Master Plan discussions have really signaled a change in the way business is conducted in River City.

Is anyone in this city?

Yes, Sam's was at 21 N.17th (SE corner of Franklin) from 1917, being located across the street from several iterations of the Farmers' Market over sixty years, but closed wayyy before the Bottom became chic in the late 70s.

VCU only turned away from demolishing the adjacent portions of Oregon Hill and the Fan circa 1989 under sustained pressure from both communities. To some of us, the threatened demolition of the Oregon Hill carriage houses smacks of a potential unpleasant repeat performance.

Ah, Burt, this would truly be an asset to the Church Hill community but I assume all of the deep-pocketed muckety-mucks are focused on CenterStage for now and the forseeable future.

It was in Style Weekly.

WOW! What a project! Hopefully someone with determination and deep pockets will finish the renovation. How about a dance hall or reperatory theater? Thanks for the inside look, BGW.

I'd like to believe you, Burt, but nothing about this project has been easy. Very inspiring! We can only hope that the effort to restore our own Loew's Theatre to its former grandeur will occur sometime during our lifetime.

Well, at least the city doesn't have an unofficial "demolition by neglect" policy. The VAPAF should not continue to manage a project that has been bungled for over half a decade. And, whatever is decided - the CCA needs a sufficient endowment to cover future maintenance and operating deficits, so that these will not be issues in the future.

And here are Brian Glass's comments on the Braves Stadium. In this case I am in general agreement with Glass, although he completely misses the synergies apparent between keeping the Stadium on the Boulevard and the Bow Tie development nearby on the same street. The Richmond Braves: It has been a long and winding road, but at long last it appears everyone who counts agrees that the stadium the Richmond Braves play in needs to remain at its current location: on the Boulevard or very close to it. My preference would be to renovate The Diamond at a cost of about $25 million (it would have cost approximately $20 million three years ago) rather than spend more than $50 million for a new ballpark in the same area. I have heard that the cost for a new ballpark is in the vicinity of $40 million, but there simply hasn't been a stadium of any kind that has come in on time and on budget, so why should this one be different? For the entire project to take shape, (there are approximately 60 developable acres) complete with housing and shops, the city will have to remove its public works and maintenance facility as soon as a deal is struck with the Atlanta Braves, who own the R-Braves. That relocation needs to be a priority. I can't imagine that the Braves can play in a new ballpark by April 2008 since the details have yet to be worked out. They can probably do it in a refurbished Diamond, however, even if the work is done in stages. Don't get me wrong: I can live with a new ballpark at this location as long as the deal is wrapped up quickly and Henrico and Chesterfield counties are part of the deal, as they were with The Diamond.

Burt, here's what Glass has to say about the Performing Arts Center: basically, let the VAPAF retain ownership of it since the city would prolly flub it up, anyhoo. But what if the city actually delegated operations to managers skilled in Performing Arts Center operations? (Something which never seemed to have occurred to Mr. Glass, or the VAPAF, for that matter.) I do agree that there should be no more delays: let's fix this so that the Carpenter Center renovations can finally begin. By the way, where is the final report of the Performing Arts Center committee? Quoth Mr. Glass: My wish for 2007 is for the city to back off with regard to the ownership of the property. It's simply not what our city does best. If you want a good example, look at The Landmark Theater (another terrible name choice). It is owned by the city, was renovated by the city and is now in dire need of major surgery. That, to me, is proof positive that this is not the business the city needs to be involved in. I am certain there are other ways to protect the city's investment than having to own the performing-arts center outright. If the ownership issue becomes a sticking point and the project is further delayed, the cost will only increase. That's a vicious spiral that needs to be avoided at all costs. Link to Brian Glass's column: http://www.timesdispatch.com/servlet/Satel...s=1045855934857

I realize that, Burt. Just having a little fun. Trolley Square is at 104 W. Franklin. It is quite typical of its era. Check out these comments on apartment life there...... http://www.apartmentreviews.net/ratings/va...-square4114.htm This appears to be a mid-60s high rise, much later than his mid 20s - early 40s work. It's possible that his firm designed it....anyone have his life dates?

Thanks worldcoupe, Cadeho, Burt & all. No, I'm not Edward Sinnott, but thanks anyway, I consider that a compliment! The only other building I can recall that Sinnot designed was Trolley Square, a 1960s highrise on W. Franklin Street near the Jefferson. I wouldn't be surprised if he designed some of the art deco businesses on W. Grace - I will spend some time researching this weekend.

Greetings urbanplaneteers, newbie here. Edward Sinnott, architect of the art deco Henrico Theatre (Highland Springs) and 616 E. Franklin Street (downtown), is also said to have designed the 634-seat Brookland Theatre, which opened around 1924-24 and closed around 1957. It still stands sturdily, awaiting a new renaissance in Richmond's Northside. This photo is from the 1930s: http://richmondthenandnow.com/Images/Richm...Theatre-big.jpg [brookland is another of Richmond's streetcar suburbs, but has long been incorporated into the City]