Diamond Area / Hermitage Rd Corridor / Ownby District

[blake_p]

Novel Scott's Addition

Scott's Walk

[I miss RVA]

52 minutes ago, blake_p said:

Novel Scott's Addition

Scott's Walk

Fantastic photos, @blake_p!! No question, you've earned yourself some prestigious RVA/UP silver hardware for - collectively - these pix and the ones of the Soda Flats and the Ace crane. In particular, I LOVE the shot of the Novel, in the home stretch of construction, with the crane for the Ace in the background. What a great combo!  Also - with the Greyhound terminal in the photo - and given last week's announcement - it sparks thoughts of how this stretch of N. Arthur Ashe could really change in the next few years with the addition of the seven-story apartment buildings proposed for the Greyhound site.

The Soda Flats look great on Broad Street - what a change to the streetscape.

Anyway - awesome collections of photos - and a silver loo for you to schlep home. Mazal Tov!!!

Edited December 17, 2023 by I miss RVA

[blake_p]

Sauer Center

Edited January 1 by blake_p
Moved to Carver Thread

[BigBobbyG]

So I took a drive down the avenue of champions road the other day and saw that the field where the new stadium would be going had a bunch of survey markers on it and there were also a ton of steel pipes in an adjacent field that looked like they had just been moved in. Does anyone know if these are new? Last I heard they still need to make all of the financial entities before things can really get started there but wanted to see if you guys had heard or seen anything about that.

In addition I saw there were new holes dug around the Arthur Ashe Center, I assume for the demolition?

I know this is all pretty nebulous so I apologize for that but I was excited to see something there given how slow the wheels have been turning on this.

[Shakman]

5 hours ago, BigBobbyG said:

So I took a drive down the avenue of champions road the other day and saw that the field where the new stadium would be going had a bunch of survey markers on it and there were also a ton of steel pipes in an adjacent field that looked like they had just been moved in. Does anyone know if these are new? Last I heard they still need to make all of the financial entities before things can really get started there but wanted to see if you guys had heard or seen anything about that.

In addition I saw there were new holes dug around the Arthur Ashe Center, I assume for the demolition?

I know this is all pretty nebulous so I apologize for that but I was excited to see something there given how slow the wheels have been turning on this.

I don't know why a hole would need to be dug for demolition unless it's for a temporary retention pond.

Edited January 2 by Shakman

[Virginian11]

9 hours ago, BigBobbyG said:

So I took a drive down the avenue of champions road the other day and saw that the field where the new stadium would be going had a bunch of survey markers on it and there were also a ton of steel pipes in an adjacent field that looked like they had just been moved in. Does anyone know if these are new? Last I heard they still need to make all of the financial entities before things can really get started there but wanted to see if you guys had heard or seen anything about that.

In addition I saw there were new holes dug around the Arthur Ashe Center, I assume for the demolition?

I know this is all pretty nebulous so I apologize for that but I was excited to see something there given how slow the wheels have been turning on this.

I’m going to take this as good news and run with it…haha!  At least it’s SOMETHING!

[Flood Zone]

"EDA pitching in $1M toward Diamond District Ballpark Design"  (RBS article)

Nothing earth-shattering, I guess.  This seems to be an advance of funds to keep the ballpark on track for a 2026 opening. Some still-to-be-finalized contractual language will give the Squirrels oversight on the design of the ballpark, which was an issue Lou DiBella was harping about a few months back. 

I don't often highlight the RBS comments, but this one made me chuckle: 

Anybody know if MLB is going to grant an exemption for the Squirrels – or will they end up playing their home games elsewhere until the new stadium is built…if it does get built at this point?

If I was MLB – I’m not so sure I would grant any exemption. This has been dragging on far too long and the stadium issue should have been taken care of a long time ago.

Whether the subject has been dragging on too long is a matter of opinion, but the thought of the Squirrels temporarily relocating from the existing ballpark, where they routinely top the Eastern League in attendance, is hilarious to me. MLB keeps granting exemptions because (a) they know Richmond is a great market for a AA team, (b) their standards and deadlines are arbitrary anyway, (c) both MLB and Richmond know this, and (d) Richmond is willing to pay up, drip by drip, while the process resolves itself.

Edited January 4 by Flood Zone

[I miss RVA]

The city is aiming for a 2026 opening for the ballpark, though I don't think MLB -- as of yet -- has come back with an exemption that will allow the Squirrels to play at the Diamond past the 2025 deadline it (MLB) had previously set for all minor league stadiums to meet specific MLB-determined standards. Gonna be interesting to see what happens here.

Alls I gotsta say is that this project had better get a move-on before the Squirrels are forced to move on to another city. Even though the Squirrels often lead the Eastern League in attendance and RVA is a fantastic minor-league baseball market - it's hard to say one way or another whether MLB will stick hard-and-fast to their deadlines. I might be wrong, but I don't recall seeing anywhere that MLB has extended a "grace period" to the Squirrels to keep playing in the Diamond until 2026. 

NOTE: RBS published a rendering of Phase I of the redevelopment that I don't recall seeing. 

Edited January 4 by I miss RVA

[eandslee]

24 minutes ago, I miss RVA said:

The city is aiming for a 2026 opening for the ballpark, though I don't think MLB -- as of yet -- has come back with an exemption that will allow the Squirrels to play at the Diamond past the 2025 deadline it (MLB) had previously set for all minor league stadiums to meet specific MLB-determined standards. Gonna be interesting to see what happens here.

Alls I gotsta say is that this project had better get a move-on before the Squirrels are forced to move on to another city. Even though the Squirrels often lead the Eastern League in attendance and RVA is a fantastic minor-league baseball market - it's hard to say one way or another whether MLB will stick hard-and-fast to their deadlines. I might be wrong, but I don't recall seeing anywhere that MLB has extended a "grace period" to the Squirrels to keep playing in the Diamond until 2026. 

NOTE: RBS published a rendering of Phase I of the redevelopment that I don't recall seeing. 

I like this rendering of the phase 1 layout. From another comment on RBS, Bruce Milam says that the developers are getting a lot of interest for the Class A space that will be offered as part of this phase. Hopefully, this interest  is new-to-market interest versus just a relocation of a company from some other part of Richmond.  Although, if a company moves from the burbs to the city, I might consider that a “win” as well, but it would be better if it were new to market. 
 

Also, the article from the Richmond Free Press seemed to have more information regarding the issue with Dibella and his desire to have control over the stadium design (which I think he is looking to design it for AAA versus for AA). I can only assume that this equals more capacity, which I completely agree with.  If we’re going to build it, build it for now and the future!  Who know when a new stadium will ever be built again in Richmond?! 

[I miss RVA]

1 minute ago, eandslee said:

I like this rendering of the phase 1 layout. From another comment on RBS, Bruce Milam says that the developers are getting a lot of interest for the Class A space that will be offered as part of this phase. Hopefully, this interest  is new-to-market interest versus just a relocation of a company from some other part of Richmond.  Although, if a company moves from the burbs to the city, I might consider that a “win” as well, but it would be better if it were new to market. 
 

Also, the article from the Richmond Free Press seemed to have more information regarding the issue with Dibella and his desire to have control over the stadium design (which I think he is looking to design it for AAA versus for AA). I can only assume that this equals more capacity, which I completely agree with.  If we’re going to build it, build it for now and the future!  Who know when a new stadium will ever be built again in Richmond?! 

This is a new story in the Free Press? By chance do you have a link?

I'd love to see the Squirrels get moved back up to AAA - perhaps back to their old stomping grounds in the International League, although the IL is huge now with 20 teams. (When did the American Association get folded into the IL?) If there's a chance to get a bump-up to AAA again, then by all means, build a bigger ballpark now. Nudge capacity to over 10,000. Perhaps construction costs won't be nearly as prohibitive in 2024 as interest rates and inflation both trend downward - and supply chain issues continue to resolve the more things normalize post-pandemic. I'd like to see what Dibella has to say.

[Flood Zone]

Pretty sure @eandsleeis referring to the Richmond Free Press article from last month. Maybe I'm wrong....

[eandslee]

8 minutes ago, Flood Zone said:

Pretty sure @eandsleeis referring to the Richmond Free Press article from last month. Maybe I'm wrong....

That is correct.  Trying to find a link….

here it is:

 https://m.richmondfreepress.com/news/2023/nov/30/absence-motion/

Edited January 4 by eandslee

[Shakman]

What the???  TOWNHOMES?!?  

[I miss RVA]

2 hours ago, Shakman said:

What the???  TOWNHOMES?!?  

I know...    

[HRVT]

5 hours ago, I miss RVA said:

This is a new story in the Free Press? By chance do you have a link?

I'd love to see the Squirrels get moved back up to AAA - perhaps back to their old stomping grounds in the International League, although the IL is huge now with 20 teams. (When did the American Association get folded into the IL?) If there's a chance to get a bump-up to AAA again, then by all means, build a bigger ballpark now. Nudge capacity to over 10,000. Perhaps construction costs won't be nearly as prohibitive in 2024 as interest rates and inflation both trend downward - and supply chain issues continue to resolve the more things normalize post-pandemic. I'd like to see what Dibella has to say.

IMO, it would absolutely be smart to build the Richmond ballpark to AAA standards. If MLB expansion happens, Richmond would be among the first in line with a new stadium designed with AAA in mind to get one of the new AAA teams that would inevitably come about. 

[I miss RVA]

44 minutes ago, HRVT said:

IMO, it would absolutely be smart to build the Richmond ballpark to AAA standards. If MLB expansion happens, Richmond would be among the first in line with a new stadium designed with AAA in mind to get one of the new AAA teams that would inevitably come about. 

  %!!!   THIS ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^  

[123fakestreet]

1 hour ago, I miss RVA said:

I know...    

Why are townhouses a bad thing?

[I miss RVA]

23 minutes ago, 123fakestreet said:

Why are townhouses a bad thing?

"Location, location, location!!" (said a la Jan Brady bemoaning "Marcia, Marcia, Marcia!!")

They (townhouses) aren't (a bad thing). Townhouses in that particular location, however, is. (In my opinion, obviously.)

I've no problem with townhomes - but I do have a problem putting them THERE - in the Diamond District. We're trying to pack a ton of density into this redevelopment, and I'm not convinced townhouses are such a good fit there. A little farther east in Carver/Newtowne West - definitely some room for townhouses and it would be a nice mix with new apartment buildings in that part of the city. What's more, I'm definitely not in favor of something akin to the Foushee Mews being built in a place like the Diamond District. Those kinds of townhouses are BIG in terms of square footage - but they will likely bring in- at best - two people per unit. Wowwwwwwwww... build 12 of 'em and you're adding, lessee... a whole whopping 24 people to the district. Yeah, I know - more people than live there now - but you could whip up a mobile home/trailer park at the far end of one of the parking lots and have just as many people (if not more) living there. (Yes, I'm being VERY tongue-in-cheek - but you get my point.)

If we're looking for home ownership as part of the overall redevelopment (which I 100% support, btw), I'd rather see 2-over-2 condos built instead of single-family attached townhomes. At least the 2-over-2's would be a little more bang for the buck from a density standpoint. We're already dedicating far too much of the Diamond District to that HUGE serpentine park (no doubt designed astronomically large as a cost-saver - WAY cheaper to shape a few hills, plant some trees and lay down grass than to build residential towers).  I realize not every building in the Diamond District can be -- or even should be -- a 10, 15, 20, whatever-story building/mid-rise/high-rise. But I just don't see townhouses as the best and highest use for ANY of the space in the Diamond District. Fill up several blocks with them a few streets over in Carver (along with apartment and condo buildings - make it a nice mix!)

Just not... THERE -- in the Diamond District.

Edited January 5 by I miss RVA

[I miss RVA]

2 hours ago, I miss RVA said:

"Location, location, location!!" (said a la Jan Brady bemoaning "Marcia, Marcia, Marcia!!")

They (townhouses) aren't (a bad thing). Townhouses in that particular location, however, is. (In my opinion, obviously.)

I've no problem with townhomes - but I do have a problem putting them THERE - in the Diamond District. We're trying to pack a ton of density into this redevelopment, and I'm not convinced townhouses are such a good fit there. A little farther east in Carver/Newtowne West - definitely some room for townhouses and it would be a nice mix with new apartment buildings in that part of the city. What's more, I'm definitely not in favor of something akin to the Foushee Mews being built in a place like the Diamond District. Those kinds of townhouses are BIG in terms of square footage - but they will likely bring in- at best - two people per unit. Wowwwwwwwww... build 12 of 'em and you're adding, lessee... a whole whopping 24 people to the district. Yeah, I know - more people than live there now - but you could whip up a mobile home/trailer park at the far end of one of the parking lots and have just as many people (if not more) living there. (Yes, I'm being VERY tongue-in-cheek - but you get my point.)

If we're looking for home ownership as part of the overall redevelopment (which I 100% support, btw), I'd rather see 2-over-2 condos built instead of single-family attached townhomes. At least the 2-over-2's would be a little more bang for the buck from a density standpoint. We're already dedicating far too much of the Diamond District to that HUGE serpentine park (no doubt designed astronomically large as a cost-saver - WAY cheaper to shape a few hills, plant some trees and lay down grass than to build residential towers).  I realize not every building in the Diamond District can be -- or even should be -- a 10, 15, 20, whatever-story building/mid-rise/high-rise. But I just don't see townhouses as the best and highest use for ANY of the space in the Diamond District. Fill up several blocks with them a few streets over in Carver (along with apartment and condo buildings - make it a nice mix!)

Just not... THERE -- in the Diamond District.

I'm leaving up what I just wrote (including the part about preferring 2-over-2's instead of attached SFTHs) - not just to prove to everyone in our community what an obviously blind-as-a-bat idiot I am - but particularly (as I wipe several chickens-worth of egg off my beard) to offer a self-corrective. I just now went back and looked again at the rendering (and the plan). What's planned for that corner of the first parcel IS, in fact, two sets of 2-over-2's. 

THAT - I'll accept. Not perfect - but at least they're not what popped into my pea-sized brain when I saw "townhouses". NOW - I WILL circle back to what I previously wrote - the parcel (now that I look at it again) that I do have a bit of heartburn with is the "Parcel E2" -- the set of townhouses closer in from Hermitage Road. I'm okay with the "Parcel E1" though why not also put a row of townhouses on the eastern flank as well? I get what they're trying to do - to create an "urban village" there - and that's cool. Something that would look really tight and together like Rockett's or some of the new urban village developments we've been seeing out in the western suburbs.

Still... maybe have ONE set of townhouses - and something bigger in that E2 parcel. Dunno... 

Edited January 5 by I miss RVA

[123fakestreet]

10 hours ago, I miss RVA said:

This is the first closeup I've seen, glad they are intersecting it with Sherwood as well as adding a couple more "real" roads through the area. This should be dense but it should also be integrated into the surrounding area, not a self contained island with only 2-3 entrances that you can't use to cut through.  I do question where parking for the Diamond will be, if they are going to have a surface lot then down in that corner at E3 would have been the place to put it.

[I miss RVA]

8 minutes ago, 123fakestreet said:

This is the first closeup I've seen, glad they are intersecting it with Sherwood as well as adding a couple more "real" roads through the area. This should be dense but it should also be integrated into the surrounding area, not a self contained island with only 2-3 entrances that you can't use to cut through.  I do question where parking for the Diamond will be, if they are going to have a surface lot then down in that corner at E3 would have been the place to put it.

Definitely love the cut-through streets and the creation of new streets. That urban look and feel - and the cohesiveness of some kind of organized street system (even if it's only a partial grid) is indispensable. Glad to see this as part of the plan.

Yeah - the parking issue isn't very clear as to how that's going to be handled. You'd think there would be decks immediately adjacent to the ballpark. I can't see baseball patrons parking in decks dedicated to either office buildings, the hotel(s) or the residential buildings.

[Flood Zone]

14 hours ago, HRVT said:

IMO, it would absolutely be smart to build the Richmond ballpark to AAA standards. If MLB expansion happens, Richmond would be among the first in line with a new stadium designed with AAA in mind to get one of the new AAA teams that would inevitably come about. 

In between now and expansion (which I do think will happen in the next decade), we have the A's moving to Las Vegas, which has been approved by MLB despite some serious questions about Nevada financing the ballpark. Nevertheless, presumably the Oakland-to-Las-Vegas move will happen by 2028, thereby freeing up a current AAA market. The Aviators are in the Pacific Coast League, but it's possible that Omaha could move from the International League over to the PCL, creating an opening in the IL for Richmond to take in the next round of affiliate jumble.

At any rate, while I understand the sentiment to want to get back to AAA for historical, market-size-comp, and "we'll feel bigger" reasons, having the Giants' AA affiliate here has been a pretty sweet deal. In addition to the fun(n) times Parney & crew have brought, for baseball fans we've seen some pretty nice prospects swing through here. Right off the bat, we got Brandon Crawford and Brandon Belt for about 300 plate appearances apiece in 2010. They were foundational players for the 2012 and 2014 world champion teams. And more recently we got about 15 starts from Logan Webb, who finished 2nd in this season's NL Cy Young Award voting. The in-between seasons are littered with guys baseball fans would recognize, such as Adam Duvall, who's made a nice career for himself as a power-hitting outfielder and was a big pick-up for the Braves when they won the World Series in 2021. 

[eandslee]

Well, phase 1 of he DD won’t be the phase 1 that was originally announced, however, it will include the new baseball stadium.  News today from the RTD says that the City is not going to pay VCU for SportsBackers track and field stadium just yet, which saves the City $25 million to go toward the baseball stadium, which has ballooned in cost due to inflation (looking at stadium cost of $115M now).  So, the drama continues and this prevents VCU from moving forward with their athletic village plans. Spokesman for VCU said, “It’s quite the curveball at the 11th hour”

https://richmond.com/news/local/business/development/richmond-prioritizes-ballpark-delays-buying-sports-backers-stadium/article_8629c17e-ac50-11ee-b01e-9797a14d4703.html#tracking-source=home-top-story

We might get a new stadium in phase 1, but most everything else appears to be up in the air. Might see some residential in some form, but it won’t include the land where SportsBackers stadium sits. 

Edited January 7 by eandslee

[I miss RVA]

7 hours ago, eandslee said:

Well, phase 1 of he DD won’t be the phase 1 that was originally announced, however, it will include the new baseball stadium.  News today from the RTD says that the City is not going to pay VCU for SportsBackers track and field stadium just yet, which saves the City $25 million to go toward the baseball stadium, which has ballooned in cost due to inflation (looking at stadium cost of $115M now).  So, the drama continues and this prevents VCU from moving forward with their athletic village plans. Spokesman for VCU said, “It’s quite the curveball at the 11th hour”

https://richmond.com/news/local/business/development/richmond-prioritizes-ballpark-delays-buying-sports-backers-stadium/article_8629c17e-ac50-11ee-b01e-9797a14d4703.html#tracking-source=home-top-story

We might get a new stadium in phase 1, but most everything else appears to be up in the air. Might see some residential in some form, but it won’t include the land where SportsBackers stadium sits. 

Here we go. Jesus Christ... Where have we seen this movie before over the past 50-plus years? If I had a nickel for every time the city has put forth a proposal that started spinning wheels - resulting in the city kicking the can down the road, delaying and pushing it off over and over an over until the proposal eventually died...  I swear to God, I suddenly feel like we've reverted to the late '70s-early '80s - when this kind of thing happened SO many times.

Boy - this is really troubling. From the RT-D article:

The second priority is the residential buildings nearby, whose tax revenue will help pay for the ballpark. The original designs showed multifamily residential buildings, town homes, a hotel, park and possibly office space. It’s unclear how many of those structures will remain in Phase 1.

I can't face-palm hard enough. This is mind-boggling to me.

Makes one wonder if Maritza Pechin saw the handwriting on the wall and grabbed a life boat before the Titanic started sinking? I've said it before (multiple times) and I'll say it again: the city has absolutely NO BUSINESS WHATSOEVER cosplaying as a land developer. The track record is littered with wreckage of who knows how many proposals/plans that either failed, got truncated or never got off the ground. I still say the city took WAY too long at the very beginning even getting RFPs out. Not saying the difficult economic climate in the immediate wake of the pandemic wouldn't have negatively impacted progress - but this project may have already gotten started. 

Tbh, I'm to the point now, after reading this article, that I'm starting to not even care whether or not we get the new ballpark. If the city is going to keep screwing around with this thing - and Phase I is going to end up being nothing but a stadium and a parking lot -- with everything else "on hold" - then screw it. Don't even waste the time and money and just scuttle the whole damn thing. I'm getting fed up with this crap - because I've seen the city do this very thing time and again. I frankly don't give two scheitzes about having a new ballpark if all we're going to have is the ballpark and a huge lot for cars. Build the other damn components along with the ballpark. Stick to the schedule. Stick to a timeline. Stop touting something as potentially transformative for the city only to then via the long, slow, painful "death by a thousand paper cuts" slowly kill the whole thing.

I swear - this city has never - EVER - met a golden-eggs-laying goose it couldn't kill.

A graphic & photo from the Times-Dispatch article gives some visual perspective:

Edited January 7 by I miss RVA

[Brent114]

Let the stadium go.  

The  thing that always derails the city’s  development goals is trying to magically fund something that isn’t sustainable or economically viable.   The city has NO business trying to fund a $115millon  ball park for a friggin’ AA baseball team.   They will squander all of the gains made in increased real estate taxes throughout the city to rebuild exactly what is there now. 
Make it stop.