Diamond Area / Hermitage Rd Corridor / Ownby District

[I miss RVA]

6 hours ago, vaceltic said:

1.) IMO (and to use a baseball analogy to tie this thread back to the Diamond District ) you hit singles. OVER and OVER and OVER again. You don’t take giant power swings at the ball - you’ll whiff every time.

2.) I think a huge reason why Co-Star is building a downtown tower is because they’ve had 10 years to establish themselves here and build from a smaller workforce into a very successful research center. It would be insane for CoStar to try and uproot all that talent built up to another place and think they’ll be as successful or believe that people would move with them. 

3.) The EDA should increase incentives for smaller companies or start-ups to grow, relocate, or develop here. Because it’s not dumping ALL its eggs in one or two baskets, there’s lots more money to go around to foster different kinds of economic sectors.  Some businesses will work out but probably many of them won’t. Then, you further grow those successful smaller wins into bigger ones with additional incentives.
 

The EDA’s FY2023 Annual Report is very well done! It even highlights a lot of the smaller successes i hope so see more of.

https://www.richmondeda.com/fy2023/

 

 

1.) Hitting singles: Hey - I can't argue at all with smallball. Creating runs wins games just as much as hitting homers do. I'd like to see us hit a LOT more singles... some doubles... maybe eek out a triple or two - and THENNNNN... clobber a grand salami over the fence. CoStar was one of those grand salamis. Truth is, we need both. We can't settle for just "organic" growth (that translates to snail's-pace incremental growth). But at the same time, you're correct that we can't keep whiffing on Ruthian swings either. Gotta make some contact and bear some fruit.

2.) CoStar: They're heavily invested in building up their presence in Richmond, regardless of where the company "HQ" is located (D.C., NOVA). RVA is essentially their base of operations, with the most employees. Only the highest honchos are up in D.C. RVA's got pretty much everything and everyone else. What's cool is that their growth has been both quite explosive (they haven't been here THAT long, in the grander scheme of things) AND organic. I agree - I don't see them uprooting everything they're building here. If anything, this is only the beginning (at least if their CEO is to be believed).

3.) EDA/Small Biz Start-ups: that should ALWAYS be part of the game plan, and increasing incentives to plant the seeds for growth is vital. It has to be a multi-pronged approach. We still need to get more CoStars, more LEGOs, more... whoever... with a billion dollars to invest and 5,000-10,000 jobs to bring here. We need more WINS in that arena as well. We can't constantly lose out to Nashville or Austin or Raleigh or WHEREVER - just because we can't offer what they can (let's start with the airport, shall we?)

But to your point, agreed - mash the gas pedal on helping smaller companies grow, relo, develop in RVA. It's good business that's good FOR business!

Edited April 18 by I miss RVA

[I miss RVA]

5 hours ago, RiverYuppy said:

Did the skyline look cool? Absolutely! But "Uptown" (which really frustrated me that it wasn't called Downtown) really isn't anything like Chicago, NYC, SF, LA, etc. Outside of the 9-5 it is way less vibrant than what its size would indicate. The reason I want tall buildings downtown is to have a fun and vibrant downtown. Otherwise they're just for the skyline.

Yeah - I can see that being the case for one very simple reason: NYC, SF, Chicago, LA have being "doing it" (that is being a "big city") for anywhere from 100, 120, even 150 years. Charlotte's been at it for... a couple of decades. Experience matters. Plus, with the exception of SF (city proper) NYC, Chicago and LA are EXPONENTIALLY larger than Charlotte. A city of 900K and a metro of 2.8 M isn't remotely in the same league as a city of 8.6 million and a metro of 27 million that's been doing this kind of thing for closing in on 200 years. Universes apart.

5 hours ago, RiverYuppy said:

The housing stock there is absolutely terrible. If you want to live close to downtown you either pay over $1m for a 900sqft house or you're rich enough to buy that house, bulldoze it, and put up a $2m house on the lot. (I know there is the "Elizabeth" neighborhood, but it's small compared to RVA).

If you want to be in the "in" areas of RVA the housing stock is full of historic victorian era buildings built to accommodate families and last. 

I hear you, and you paint a fantastic and clear visual of the state of play. All very good stuff. But as I said previously - aesthetics are the icing - and I want the cake. I want 35,000 (or more) people living downtown... 120K working downtown... 6,600 hotel rooms... 18 million people and BOOMING business, events, and tourism FILLING those rooms (and by extension, FILLING RIC to the point that it has to expand to a second, multi-concourse terminal and add that parallel runway that's in the airport master plan!)

Mind you, it's a VERY valid point and an excellent point of comparison between the cities. And from the perspective of individuals or families looking to move to a location, aesthetics are absolutely important. And it's that granular level detail that DOES make a difference in people's decisions to relocate from one area to another. I can't argue with you. I just think we're talking apples and oranges, though, bc I'm looking at this from the 30,000 foot level - big picture - urban-planning, economic-competition perspective and how can we grow our market size to compete -- and WIN -- and fully revitalize downtown. 

5 hours ago, RiverYuppy said:

What I do miss from Charlotte was some of the amenities. While I think that RVA punches above its weight for restaurants, the variety of cool places to eat, play, and shop in CLT was really nice. That is something that comes with size and a large professional workforce.

There are many experiences I had in CLT that I wish I could have in RVA.

AHHHHHH... NOW we're starting to talk the same language. We can't have those things UNLESS and UNTIL we get bigger. A LOT bigger. And where have y'all heard THAT sermon preached before?  

5 hours ago, RiverYuppy said:

I think CLT does BIG in a way that is least enjoyable.

Same could be said for Houston -- and practically EVERY Southern boomtown either hasn't been at it very long or didn't start doing "big" 150-plus years ago like the cities of the Northeast and Midwest did.

Really good observation though - and the visual it paints it pretty rich.

5 hours ago, RiverYuppy said:

@I miss RVA will be happy to know I convinced my partner's parents to move to RVA. We'll poach CLT residents one couple at a time if we have to. 

Ohhhhhhhhhhhh I'm not just happy, my dear friend. I'm breaking out a Snoopy dance on this one -- ANNNNNNNNNNNNND -- I'm so thrilled by THIS absolutely OUTSTANDING news, that I'm putting in a special requisition for the rarest of the rare. We NEVER give these out. Only three - or is it four? -- have been awarded in the history of this fine, upstanding community.

You, sir, and by extension your partner - are worthy recipients of nothing less than RVA/UP GOLD Hardware!!! WOW!!! It takes something EPIC to win one of these rarities. And you've done exactly that. WELL DONE!!! MAZAL TOV!!!

5 hours ago, RiverYuppy said:

1.) I want RVA to grow. I just want it to grow in a way that makes it more enjoyable to live and play in RVA. A new HQ in Short Pump where the workers consider The Fan/Scott's Addition "Downtown" and never enter the city does little to increase the demand for the types of amenities I want in the city.

2.) I think the best mid-sized example of this is Norfolk. New developments in Virginia Beach or Chesapeake do more to suck development out of Norfolk than increase it.

3.) I want RVA to do the reverse, suck the development out of the counties.

1.) That's a good point and you're right. All it does is increase demand in Short Pump. Of course the flip side is that ANY kind of growth, be it in the city, Short Pump, Midlothian, Petersburg - it ALL contributes to the growth of the RVA metro - and those numbers are EXTREMELY important and play a part in garnering more relos, etc., to enter the market.

2.) Excellent example - and 10,000% spot-on accurate.  

3.) You might be surprised by my response but: I DON'T want RVA city to suck the development (and population) out of the counties. I want BOTH of them to grow! Do you know where I want RVA to suck away development and population? Our competitors. I want us grabbing folks who WOULD HAVE moved to one of those other cities, but instead, whether because their company relocated here or expanded here or a different company with a better offer was established here - whatever - decided to move here. I don't want intra jurisdictional cannibalization happening. I want us gobbling up everything from OUTSIDE the RVA market in order to grow the ENTIRE RVA market.

5 hours ago, RiverYuppy said:

1.) The Diamond District is set to include ~2k housing units, plus even more in the vicinity. That's more than Scott's Addition put up all together 2010-2020.

2.) That would be a vacuum pointed straight at Henrico to get residents into the city.

3.) Having more people close to Downtown also create more incentive for companies to locate offices in Downtown RVA, creating the type of cycle that has built many of the great cities.

1.) If all of this actually gets built. I'm beginning to have my doubts, both about the Diamond District AND City Center. I'm trying to stay positive, but I've been around the block a time or two and have seen this movie at LEAST as many times as I've watched the entire series (all 86 episodes) of the Sopranos with my brother - which is WAY too many to count, capisce?  

2.) See above. I don't want that AT ALL. Intra jurisdictional cannibalization does NOTHING good for metro RVA. It's tantamount to spinning our wheels and going nowhere fast. Better we grow BOTH Henrico and the city (and all the other counties around us as well.) Grow this whole damn place!

3.) 100% spot on. That is indeed something that can help with demand. I forgot to mention in quoting "Uptown's" stats - 33 million square feet of office space (gotta put those 120K workers SOMEWHERE), and 18 million visitors annually to the district. I'd bet the larger percentage of it is business traffic - and that's a LOT of people. Imagine that in downtown RVA!!

But to  your point - absolutely spot on. We MUST MUST MUST MUST MUST under ALLLLLL circumstances grow the downtown population. Again - 30,000 according to my urban planning professors at VCU 40 years ago. It's part of the "secret sauce" that can really kickstart downtown's resurgence. 

Great stuff!! And expect delivery of your magnificent award any moment now!

Edited April 18 by I miss RVA

[Flood Zone]

Squirrels had the third highest attendance in all of MILB in April.

In a nutshell: Richmond is in no danger of losing baseball. The Squirrels are profitable. The question, as it always is in stadium/arena discussions, is how to make the enterprise more profitable.

[Shakman]

This could be a great indication to MLB that Richmond can support a AAA team.

[Flood Zone]

Easily.  As it always could.

Take last year's attendance, add about five home dates to account for the slightly longer International League schedule, and, boom, the Squirrels would have ranked 9th or 10th in the 20-team International League.  Then consider this is at The Diamond, which everyone and their mother has said sucks since 2001 (when the Braves floated the first replacement trial balloon, for a site next to the Federal Reserve building), with AA teams coming into town, to the extent that has an attendance effect.

Hell, the Squirrels last year doubled Gwinnett's per-day attendance and that's who got the Braves (now the Stripers). They easily outdrew Louisville and lapped Memphis. They outdrew Norfolk. Some of these things are cyclical (I'd expect Norfolk's attendance to skyrocket this season, especially with Jackson Holliday back down there), but you get the point.

The point of a new-stadium-push is hardly ever that the team can't survive without a new stadium. That's certainly not the case for the Squirrels (although I'll be happy when the new ballpark actually is built). That wasn't even the case with the R-Braves. but that's a different story for a different time. In terms of demographics and interest, this has always solidly been a AAA market. Perhaps it is even more so now due to the emergence of Scott's Addition because The Diamond is certainly a popular destination for its residents.

[BigBobbyG]

It looks like the big vote is coming up tomorrow. Hopefully everything goes well, the article indicates the majority of the councilors are on board at least. I have added a link to the ordinance authorizing this too so you guys can read it and the public comments surrounding it. Whether you support this or not I'd encourage you to send an email to [email protected] stating your support or disapproval. As I am sure y'all have seen here, I personally am in support of this despite the changes. I need to see us get an economic development off of the ground for once and I do not want to lose all this planned housing and the flying squirrels (or really minor league baseball in general) if this doesn't go through. I know there are arguments that it's too lucrative of a market to lose regardless but I am not willing to take that chance.

https://richmondbizsense.com/2024/05/07/city-council-to-vote-wednesday-on-new-diamond-district-financing-plan/

https://richmondva.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=6629026&GUID=EAF247FF-758A-4198-8AA1-9224DD29FA40&Options=&Search=

[Flood Zone]

Council just voted unanimously (of those members present) for the ordinances.

They've moved on to a motion to expedite appointment of initial Diamond District Authority directors.

[Child2021]

Hey I was just to about to type this, lol. 

7 minutes ago, Flood Zone said:

Council just voted unanimously (of those members present) for the ordinances.

They've moved on to a motion to expedite appointment of initial Diamond District Authority directors.

 

[Flood Zone]

You can give the update on the appointment of directors and creation of the CDA....

[BigBobbyG]

22 minutes ago, Flood Zone said:

Council just voted unanimously (of those members present) for the ordinances.

They've moved on to a motion to expedite appointment of initial Diamond District Authority directors.

Nice! Just out of curiosity who wasn’t there? 

[I miss RVA]

Here's the Times-Dispatch's reporting on today's meeting:

https://richmond.com/news/local/business/development/flying-squirrels-diamond-district-ballpark/article_ae3a30b0-0be4-11ef-a047-c3daef140383.html#tracking-source=home-top-story

[Flood Zone]

14 hours ago, I miss RVA said:

Here's the Times-Dispatch's reporting on today's meeting:

https://richmond.com/news/local/business/development/flying-squirrels-diamond-district-ballpark/article_ae3a30b0-0be4-11ef-a047-c3daef140383.html#tracking-source=home-top-story

Assuming he ascertains how many signatures he needs to obtain, I'd put the odds of Paul Goldman filing a petition calling for a bond referendum at between 99.99 and 100.00%. 

[I miss RVA]

16 minutes ago, Flood Zone said:

Assuming he ascertains how many signatures he needs to obtain, I'd put the odds of Paul Goldman filing a petition calling for a bond referendum at between 99.99 and 100.00%. 

Yep - I think you're correct on that. And let me guess - the referendum would be in November, yes? That by itself is problematic because even if it were to pass, it would introduce further delay into the process that needed to have already gotten started. I have the sinking feeling that Goldman's efforts will -- at best -- delay the process to the point that there's no way in hell the ballpark will be ready for opening day in 2026 or -- at worst -- completely derail the entire Diamond District redevelopment altogether. If it's the former, dunno if that mean's bye-bye Squirrels, but that doesn't bode well for the future of baseball in Richmond. If it's the latter, it means that come 2026, we'll still have the Diamond -- perhaps without a baseball team -- and we'll still have a sea of barren, undeveloped parking lots while the city spins its wheels and flailing, trying to restart the whole process. And if baseball departs, it's not inconceivable that the city might just wash their hands of the whole thing and bail.

Reason number 145 why the city has NO business LARPing as real estate developer.

[Flood Zone]

29 minutes ago, I miss RVA said:

have the sinking feeling that Goldman's efforts will -- at best -- delay the process to the point that there's no way in hell the ballpark will be ready for opening day in 2026 or -- at worst -- completely derail the entire Diamond District redevelopment altogether. If it's the former, dunno if that mean's bye-bye Squirrels, but that doesn't bode well for the future of baseball in Richmond.

I'd say let's slow down here.

Assuming the referendum passes (and I think it would - the detail about moving the Ashe Center proceeds to RPS was unusually savvy), and yes, it would be in November, there's no way in the world that means bye-bye to the Squirrels. And we'd still be looking at the ballpark being in play for some point of the 2026 season, and the moment the first pitch is thrown there we are golden. Future of baseball in Richmond is secure the moment a shovel hits the dirt.

Edit: This is all assuming Goldman gets enough signatures on the petition, which I may have chalked up as too easy a burden before. 

Edited May 9 by Flood Zone

[HRVT]

2 hours ago, I miss RVA said:

Yep - I think you're correct on that. And let me guess - the referendum would be in November, yes? That by itself is problematic because even if it were to pass, it would introduce further delay into the process that needed to have already gotten started. I have the sinking feeling that Goldman's efforts will -- at best -- delay the process to the point that there's no way in hell the ballpark will be ready for opening day in 2026 or -- at worst -- completely derail the entire Diamond District redevelopment altogether. If it's the former, dunno if that mean's bye-bye Squirrels, but that doesn't bode well for the future of baseball in Richmond. If it's the latter, it means that come 2026, we'll still have the Diamond -- perhaps without a baseball team -- and we'll still have a sea of barren, undeveloped parking lots while the city spins its wheels and flailing, trying to restart the whole process. And if baseball departs, it's not inconceivable that the city might just wash their hands of the whole thing and bail.

Reason number 145 why the city has NO business LARPing as real estate developer.

Yes, this could be VERY problematic. Simply getting the bond referendum going delays the process to an earliest possible start of early November 2024. That would allow about 18 months before opening day 2026. That alone is MASSIVELY pushing it. But when you consider that getting shovel into the ground right after the election (assuming a positive result) is completely unrealistic and you're really looking at a January 2025 start at the very earliest (optimistically), that makes an already tight time crunch all the worse. 16 months is a mighty tight window to get a stadium built, even in good conditions. 

As it is, all of this was supposed to be in 11 months. Baseball is making an exception to that rule in part because of the great market Richmond is. But you have to think that should the 2026 opening day ALSO start to become in question, they may start to explore other options and basically say "ya know what guys... call us when you get something done". 
 

And I wonder if Goldman knows this. Basically saying "I don't have to wait you developers/city out... I just have to wait baseball out". And if the referendum were to pass somehow, you can bet the Squirrels are gone. And if that happens... hopefully that doesn't sink the project entirely (basically leaving Richmond without a team for the foreseeable future). 

Edited May 9 by HRVT

[BigBobbyG]

Well it looks like he filed a lawsuit? Is that the same thing y’all are referencing with a petition? I swear man, we make one step forward and ten back. 
 

 

[Flood Zone]

No -- at least not really.

This lawsuit has been filed in lieu of the petition, or perhaps as a precursor to it. 

[BigBobbyG]

12 minutes ago, Flood Zone said:

No -- at least not really.

This lawsuit has been filed in lieu of the petition, or perhaps as a precursor to it. 

I see. Thanks for the information. I hope this doesn't blow up into a whole thing. I do believe a referendum on this would do much better than the casino ones but we don't have time for that delay. Not to mention, I see Richmond For All starting to get their gears turning on this one.

[HRVT]

1 hour ago, BigBobbyG said:

I see. Thanks for the information. I hope this doesn't blow up into a whole thing. I do believe a referendum on this would do much better than the casino ones but we don't have time for that delay. Not to mention, I see Richmond For All starting to get their gears turning on this one.

That's likely the idea here. Stall, stall, stall... knowing that Richmond is already getting a one year reprieve and has a quickly tightening window to be ready in time Opening Day 2026 too.

They don't have to wait out the process. They just have to wait out MLB/MiLB.... and I dont think baseball is going to look kindly on even more delay/uncertainty.

Edited May 9 by HRVT

[Flood Zone]

41 minutes ago, HRVT said:

They just have to wait out MLB/MiLB.... and I dont think baseball is going to look kindly on even more delay/uncertainty.

This is where I disagree. MLB/MILB has less "hand" than it seems. They've played their biggest hand, which is convincing a host city with consistently the league's highest attendance that it needs a new stadium. So the city has played ball, albeit incompetently so. The rest of their "hand" is an arbitrary deadline structure. Despite all the bellicose noise, it's a weak position because the grass truly won't be greener anywhere else, if they've even looked anywhere else.  Lou DiBella will get upset in the papers every now and then, but at the end of the day this is the best possible outcome - getting a new park here. So, in the end, they will wait. Not forever, but MLB/MILB isn't going to cut ties with us if the thing isn't ready for opening day 2026. That would be dumb, imho, and contrary to MLB's usual strategy in these things.

[I miss RVA]

2 hours ago, BigBobbyG said:

I swear man, we make one step forward and ten back. 

Yep. Spot on, and it's yet another one we can add to the litany of "You're very Richmond if... "  

Edited May 9 by I miss RVA

[HRVT]

On 5/9/2024 at 4:45 PM, Flood Zone said:

This is where I disagree. MLB/MILB has less "hand" than it seems. They've played their biggest hand, which is convincing a host city with consistently the league's highest attendance that it needs a new stadium. So the city has played ball, albeit incompetently so. The rest of their "hand" is an arbitrary deadline structure. Despite all the bellicose noise, it's a weak position because the grass truly won't be greener anywhere else, if they've even looked anywhere else.  Lou DiBella will get upset in the papers every now and then, but at the end of the day this is the best possible outcome - getting a new park here. So, in the end, they will wait. Not forever, but MLB/MILB isn't going to cut ties with us if the thing isn't ready for opening day 2026. That would be dumb, imho, and contrary to MLB's usual strategy in these things.

The problem here is that these aren't just "loose guidelines" or "it would be nice if ya had this by 2025" recommendations. It's part of a literal agreement to be a PDL license holder.... something all A, A+, AA+ and AAA teams agreed to in exchange for continuing to have a team in those classifications.

For the right markets (like Richmond), some flexibility will be (and obviously has been) extended, whereas some other markets such as Kinston are losing their teams to other markets that have built new stadiums that meet the requirements. But at a certain point, patience is going to wear thin. My guess here is that MiLB will probably be willing to see the results of an election (done by November) or lawsuit (to see if it gets resolved quickly). But if Richmond gets into 2025 and still has yet to lift a shovel towards development of this project, I don't think Richmond should assume that baseball will simply continue to wait around for them. Richmond is a good market. But there are other markets that DO meet the requirements that would be happy to have a AA team and not put baseball through this song and dance.

All might not be lost for Richmond. I'm not sure if the Atlantic League has the same requirements but they are connected with MLB as well. I could see Richmond getting a team from a similar league at least until this stadium hullabaloo resolves itself. Should Richmond get out of its own way later, they will be on the VERY short list for a new MiLB team... potentially AAA. If actual construction can begin soon (ie: the next 9-12 months), Richmond might get one more year to ensure they are ready by 2027. But baseball isn't going to give Richmond years and years to resolve the Diamond situation.... the ballpark was obsolete and barely tenable 15 years ago.

Edited May 13 by HRVT

[BigBobbyG]

Well here’s hoping that law suit gets thrown out (seriously the council clerk and city attorney must have been prepared for him to do that right?) and the petition doesn’t get enough signatures.
 

I’m going to go to the informational session on the diamond district in a few minutes. I’ll let y’all know if I hear anything interesting about all of this and more importantly the rest of the plan. If they ask for input I’ll certainly be speaking up about height and density! 

[Flood Zone]

6 minutes ago, HRVT said:

The problem here is that these aren't just "loose guidelines" or "it would be nice if ya had this by 2025" recommendations. It's part of a literal agreement to be a PDL license holder.... something all A, A+, AA+ and AAA teams agreed to in exchange for continuing to have a team in those classifications.

You're right. But agreements are made to be adapted. I think we're going to agree to disagree on the viability of other markets as compared to Richmond.

Edited May 9 by Flood Zone

[HRVT]

11 minutes ago, Flood Zone said:

You're right. But agreements are made to be adapted. I think we're going to agree to disagree on the viability of other markets as compared to Richmond.

Richmond as a market is excellent. As a market, Richmond is a clear AAA worthy market.

However, Richmond does not have a facility that has been deemed adequate for AAA baseball.... and so the city lost the AAA team. Now the facility is deemed inadequate for ANY level of Minor League Baseball.  That includes A, A+, AA, and AAA. Richmond is going to get a lot of leeway that a lot of other cities (like Kinston) would not get. But, like hockey... eventually you have to have a facility that is up to snuff. Baseball BADLY wants to stay in Richmond. Unfortunately, Richmond is basically making that impossible. It's not even as if The Diamond is "in the ballpark" (pun intended) as far the facilities go and is just a few minor upgrades short. Outside of capacity, The Diamond falls short in nearly every measure nowadays (and really, even 20 years ago too).

This has nothing to do with markets. This is about the lack of a remotely tenable facility.

Edited May 9 by HRVT