Diamond Area / Hermitage Rd Corridor / Ownby District

[I miss RVA]

2 hours ago, Brent114 said:

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. 

I'm to the point now that I agree with you. Just pull the plug on it. They can't seem to project-manage their way out of a wet paper bag. And this constant, piecemeal over-time truncation of originally visionary proposals is a consistent M.O. whenEVER the city gets a burr in its saddle and decides to LARP as real estate developer, which seems to happen once or twice every couple of decades going back to the '70s. Honestly, I can't even begin to voice the depth of my frustration with this.

Maybe I'm reading into it - but it seems like we're maybe now seeing what prompted Ms. Pechin to run - and not walk - away from this project and from City Hall altogether.

And while this redev initiative seems to be leaking -- if not spewing -- oil, what of City Center? Four finalists since last summer - and crickets from City Hall as to who gets the honor of watching THEIR proposal get shaved and truncated and pushed off and left to wither and die on the vine.

As inept, incompetent and slow-to-the-switch as the state is, AT LEAST THEY GET SHEITZE BUILT IN THIS TOWN!!! Mark my words - we'll see that (GORGEOUS) new courthouse building at the foot of Capital Square, and some kind of SOMETHING with the Monroe Building and that soon to be squirrel park at 7th and E. Main before we see anything of any substance with the Diamond District or City Center. Whatever faith I had in the city to MAYBE - just MAYBE actually pull this thing off (for a change) started to go out the window when Ms. Pechin exited stage left. The tiny shred remaining is quickly heading out the door now.

@Brent114-- you nailed it. The city has no business trying to fund these redevelopment projects. It has proven in the past that it flat out cannot manage a public-private partnership - and they tend to constantly bite off way more than they can chew. If the city wants to PLAN these projects - and if the economic development office wants to RECRUIT developers who will come in and invest - then FINE and DANDY!! But STOP trying to "partner" on these damn projects. It might work in other cities - BUT IT DOESN'T SEEM TO PAN OUT IN RICHMOND FOR SOME REASON -- AT ALL. It would be FAR better for the city planners to put the project out for bid, coordinate and guide what's "desired" in terms of how the vision for redevelopment goes - and if it's city-owned property, just effing SELL THE DAMN LAND and wipe their hands of it from that point. Pony up NO money. Let investors invest, developers develop, and builders build. Period.

The city planners are GREAT at developing FANTASTIC master plans and SAPs - and that's about the extent of what should be the city's involvement with ANY of these processes. Leave financing, development and construction to professionals. Don't try to "participate" in this, because the city's "participation" is an iron-clad, money-back guarantee of catastrophic project failure.

Edited January 7 by I miss RVA

[Virginian11]

Looks like it may be time to fire up the campaign for the rebrand to the Henrico Hippos…

[Flood Zone]

21 hours ago, I miss RVA said:

Makes one wonder if Maritza Pechin saw the handwriting on the wall and grabbed a life boat before the Titanic started sinking?

No.

I don't mean that as a 100% statement as I don't know her. But I know people who do, and what I understand is that she's a climber and got a job too good to pass up.

[123fakestreet]

17 hours ago, I miss RVA said:

The city planners are GREAT at developing FANTASTIC master plans and SAPs 

Because the city doesn't do those, they hire an outside firm. Just like the plan submissions are all pretty nice, because they are from outside developers. Once any direct responsibility falls on the city they drop the ball, drag their feet, scale down the plans, and get nothing done.

[I miss RVA]

1 hour ago, 123fakestreet said:

Because the city doesn't do those, they hire an outside firm. Just like the plan submissions are all pretty nice, because they are from outside developers. Once any direct responsibility falls on the city they drop the ball, drag their feet, scale down the plans, and get nothing done.

 %  

Exactly.

[Flood Zone]

16 hours ago, Virginian11 said:

Looks like it may be time to fire up the campaign for the rebrand to the Henrico Hippos…

LOL!

 

23 hours ago, I miss RVA said:

I'm to the point now that I agree with you. Just pull the plug on it.

This sentiment is curious to me. In prior comments, you've* expressed concern over losing the team because the stadium won't get done, and that it's good to upsize the stadium to make it AAA standard. But this article says they're focused on getting the stadium done, ahead of all else (including the who-cares athletics village), and that the price of the stadium has ballooned. Presumably the delay in ironing out all the details has contributed to the price increase, but also upsizing the ballpark would, too, especially given the team itself is now leading the design. We've gone from $70M, to $90M, to $115M per this article.

Keep in mind that I'm no fan of the city's efficiency or planning capabilities, but beneath the surface, everything in this article seems pretty self-evident. They're got one "have to" on the block right now -- the ballpark. Whether that should be a "have to" is another matter, given how arbitrary MLB's standards and timing are, but we all recognize that can can't be kicked down the road any longer.** Everything else, except for residential, I guess, can be reserved for a later date. There is the danger of letting renderings affect our sense of the future reality, although we all caution ourselves not to do that in every thread. At any rate, I don't think we're at a disaster point for this development yet. The same market forces that affect that a big building in Manchester would affect this project, too, although I'm thinking on a much larger scale.

* I don't intend to single you out. I just see you as a prolific and representative poster!

**Whether the city should be financing a minor league team's ballpark is another argument, too, of course, and I'm familiar with it! I've read Baseball and Billions, Lords of the Realm, all that stuff.

[Brent114]

I’m all for it getting done.  But what is the financing mechanism now?  
Wasn't all of the surrounding development supposed to pay for the ballpark?   Seems to me that the city will just siphon tax money (that was already earmarked  to cover existing costs for the city) off of properties not at all related to the ballpark.    That’s insane, IMO.   
 

[I miss RVA]

1 hour ago, Flood Zone said:

LOL!

 

This sentiment is curious to me. In prior comments, you've* expressed concern over losing the team because the stadium won't get done, and that it's good to upsize the stadium to make it AAA standard. But this article says they're focused on getting the stadium done, ahead of all else (including the who-cares athletics village), and that the price of the stadium has ballooned. Presumably the delay in ironing out all the details has contributed to the price increase, but also upsizing the ballpark would, too, especially given the team itself is now leading the design. We've gone from $70M, to $90M, to $115M per this article.

Keep in mind that I'm no fan of the city's efficiency or planning capabilities, but beneath the surface, everything in this article seems pretty self-evident. They're got one "have to" on the block right now -- the ballpark. Whether that should be a "have to" is another matter, given how arbitrary MLB's standards and timing are, but we all recognize that can can't be kicked down the road any longer.** Everything else, except for residential, I guess, can be reserved for a later date. There is the danger of letting renderings affect our sense of the future reality, although we all caution ourselves not to do that in every thread. At any rate, I don't think we're at a disaster point for this development yet. The same market forces that affect that a big building in Manchester would affect this project, too, although I'm thinking on a much larger scale.

* I don't intend to single you out. I just see you as a prolific and representative poster!

**Whether the city should be financing a minor league team's ballpark is another argument, too, of course, and I'm familiar with it! I've read Baseball and Billions, Lords of the Realm, all that stuff.

It's a fair question, @Flood Zone. More than anything, it's simply my frustration boiling over -- particularly since I've seen this movie so many times I can practically quote chapter and verse the excuses the city will make at some point if/when they can't get this thing done. Basically the same M.O. they've followed since the late 1970s. What's the adage? "The more things change, the more they stay the same."

When it comes down to brass tacks, I do favor upsizing the stadium to AAA standards - and, obviously, I don't want the Squirrels to walk. But I am uber frustrated with what I see as yet another "here we go again" scenario - where the city promises much and delivers almost nothing. In truth, my biggest frustration (as I've expressed previously) is that the city is even attempting the wear the cap of land developer. I've no problem with the city developing plans, guiding processes in terms of what is desired or the kind of redevelopment takes place, etc. But it never fails - when the city decides to "partner" with the private sector on city-owned land so using public monies so that they'll have some "ownership" in either the process or the final product, it goes awry. Other cities seem to be able to pull it off quite well - but for some reason, it's never been a good proposition in Richmond. (Maybe it's because cities that are more successful with this kind of public/private partnership tend to be cities and markets significantly larger than RVA - and Richmond simply doesn't have the resources to realistically try to do something like this. Idk what the answer is...)

And to your other point - because it's something I was thinking about the other day (and I'm glad you quoted the figures because I couldn't remember the numbers as they magically increased) - HOW exactly does this ballpark go from $70M to $90M to $115M when - if I recall from what was originally envisioned - the stadium is scaled back slightly (or at least there was discussion of that at some point???) - AND - the economy has been leveling off and continues to do so? I point to the fact that interest rates have stabilized and are forecast to trend downward with the possibility of up to three Fed rate cuts this year. Supply chain issues at least in some areas have dramatically improved over where they were a 12, 18, 24 months ago (when costs began soaring) in the immediate and short-term wake of the pandemic. Admittedly, I say this as a layman and I certainly don't know what sectors that affect the CRE are improving or still haven't improved - and how this would impact construction of a baseball stadium. Costs and interest rates haven't exploded THAT dramatically since the RFP went out (18 months ago?) and the developer was selected (a year ago?) Again -- if anything, things are stabilizing. So WHAT exactly is pushing the cost of the ballpark up by roughly 65%?  Was that original $70M nothing more than a hoped-for, best-guess, published low-ball figure? Was it a low-ball estimate that wasn't based on anything approaching real numbers? Again, I'm a layman - but I just don't understand how the cost of this ballpark can increase by SIXTY-FIVE PERCENT in the span of a year!! 

What am I missing?

To your final point: I agree - we're far from the "break glass in case of emergency" point for this development - but I'm going on what I've seen as a broken record of the city's past performance. I'm envisioning a scenario that looks something like this:  yeah - the ballpark gets built and a nice, shiny, new parking lot comes along with it. And that's it. Nothing else. Nisht. And THENNNNN... the city starts kicking the rest of the Diamond District can down the road with the mantra of "when things improve..." Meanwhile, what was originally supposed to be developed as some kind of "package deal" (even in phases - the Phase 1 urban village that was to rise east of the ballpark was part of what was supposed to come WITH the ballpark) - continues to remain a wonderful dream. A pipe dream maybe, but boy, it's beautiful. From there - fast-forward 10 years - we still have the ballpark. We still have the parking lot.  We still have the Squirrels. And we have long-since sent packing the developers who we gratefully thanked for their services for "saving baseball in Richmond" and for building a nice ballpark and big parking lot. Oh- and maybe the rest of the Diamond District gets transformed into a mammoth city-owned public green space that everyone and their cousin seems to pine away about like an unrequited lover does for his/her love interest.

 

Now - I'm not suggesting this absolutely WILL happen. But what I AM saying is that - based on this city's track record - I would not at all be surprised if the scenario I just laid out comes to pass pretty much as I described.

[flaneur]

Good points all around on the city often going all in on big ticket "this has to be it!!!" projects that really have so many complicated variables (we so dodged a major financial nightmare by not seeing the Navy Hill project land), but I do think the stadium will get built given VCU's involvement and others. That general site right off 95/64 next to Scott's Addition and right up to the Pulse/Broad corridor will be in demand by private developers, and full of market potential requiring no subsidy, regardless of an RFP process. Re: Maritza Pechin, she had the chance to be a schedule C political appointee in the Biden administration working under Sec. Buttigieg. While her job might only last until the end of this year depending on the outcome of November, it's definitely something that for someone with her talent and capability, would be hard to turn down. I wish her the best, am grateful for the serious human capital value add she made showing the caliber of person the city should strive to hire, and I hope she'll consider returning one day. 

[I miss RVA]

3 hours ago, flaneur said:

Good points all around on the city often going all in on big ticket "this has to be it!!!" projects that really have so many complicated variables (we so dodged a major financial nightmare by not seeing the Navy Hill project land), but I do think the stadium will get built given VCU's involvement and others. That general site right off 95/64 next to Scott's Addition and right up to the Pulse/Broad corridor will be in demand by private developers, and full of market potential requiring no subsidy, regardless of an RFP process. Re: Maritza Pechin, she had the chance to be a schedule C political appointee in the Biden administration working under Sec. Buttigieg. While her job might only last until the end of this year depending on the outcome of November, it's definitely something that for someone with her talent and capability, would be hard to turn down. I wish her the best, am grateful for the serious human capital value add she made showing the caliber of person the city should strive to hire, and I hope she'll consider returning one day. 

!!  VERY well said on all points, @flaneur-- and I couldn't agree more.  

[123fakestreet]

https://richmondbizsense.com/2024/01/22/vcu-says-work-to-begin-on-42-acre-athletic-village-this-spring/

VCU Athletic Village to start phase 1 of 4 this spring. I may have missed it but I didn't see a timeline for the entire project, but I think I've heard in the past it was a pretty long horizon - might be 10 years before it's 100% complete. Also those 2 smaller buildings that apparently refused to sell are annoying me. Fill this thing out to an even rectangle. 

 

 

Edited January 22 by 123fakestreet

[RiverYuppy]

It looks like it is going to be a 6-7 year horizon, with the ABC HQ being the last domino to fall.

Quote

... [McLaughlin] hoping the entire campus could be completed in six or seven years. 

I really do hope they add an educational building as well. While this will look so much better than what is there now and really transform the Hermitage corridor to Brookland Park Boulevard, it will limit density. At least having some extra employees in the area would help.

[I miss RVA]

2 hours ago, RiverYuppy said:

It looks like it is going to be a 6-7 year horizon, with the ABC HQ being the last domino to fall.

I really do hope they add an educational building as well. While this will look so much better than what is there now and really transform the Hermitage corridor to Brookland Park Boulevard, it will limit density. At least having some extra employees in the area would help.

Agreed.  Absolutely zero density whatsoever. which is a shame, given the outstanding development just south of this swath along Overbrook Road.

Here's what's being proposed:

[Flood Zone]

Nice that the tennis courts will be open to the public, but boo that the practice fields won't be. Hell, even St. Chris opens its fields for the public when they're not using them!

[123fakestreet]

3 hours ago, I miss RVA said:

 Absolutely zero density whatsoever. which is a shame, given the outstanding development just south of this swath along Overbrook Road.

Not realistic for this city to have a big boom of several huge developments right next to each other all at once. The realistic options for this area are 1-2 large apartments in this area filling up 1-2 blocks, or 6 full blocks of less dense but  very nice looking development. I'll take the 6 blocks all day. The city has tons of empty space, if you want super dense everywhere we'll all be dead by the time it comes to fruition.

[I miss RVA]

1 hour ago, 123fakestreet said:

Not realistic for this city to have a big boom of several huge developments right next to each other all at once.

if you want super dense everywhere we'll all be dead by the time it comes to fruition.

1.) True. I sometimes get caught up in our recent success and forget that we're not on the level of a Raleigh, Nashville or Austin.

2.) Unfortunately, VERY true - and that's probably more likely for me than for many on here, given my age. I'm 61 and the fact that I'd have to live to at least 120 to see this city have the level of density I'd like to see is what is the most upsetting on a personal level.

One other point - as for having several huge developments right next to each other all at once: I'm beginning to have my doubts about the Diamond District - and I could see the VCU athletic village come to pass - at least in part - before the Diamond District gets off the ground, at the rate things are going. Mike pointed out in the article that the development authority that's needed to get bonds issued, etc., STILL hasn't been formed. The more time passes with absolutely no movement on it, the less confident I am that this thing will ever happen.

[HRVT]

17 hours ago, I miss RVA said:

1.) True. I sometimes get caught up in our recent success and forget that we're not on the level of a Raleigh, Nashville or Austin.

2.) Unfortunately, VERY true - and that's probably more likely for me than for many on here, given my age. I'm 61 and the fact that I'd have to live to at least 120 to see this city have the level of density I'd like to see is what is the most upsetting on a personal level.

One other point - as for having several huge developments right next to each other all at once: I'm beginning to have my doubts about the Diamond District - and I could see the VCU athletic village come to pass - at least in part - before the Diamond District gets off the ground, at the rate things are going. Mike pointed out in the article that the development authority that's needed to get bonds issued, etc., STILL hasn't been formed. The more time passes with absolutely no movement on it, the less confident I am that this thing will ever happen.

At this point, I simply wonder when the announcement will be that the Squirrels are relocating after the season. MiLB mayyyy have been able to put up with a one year exception if the wheels were in motion. But at this point, why would anyone have confidence in Richmond being able to deliver in even 2026?

At this point, whatever stadium is built is likely going to be for a new team... whether AAA, AA, or even lower. 

[eandslee]

6 hours ago, HRVT said:

At this point, I simply wonder when the announcement will be that the Squirrels are relocating after the season. MiLB mayyyy have been able to put up with a one year exception if the wheels were in motion. But at this point, why would anyone have confidence in Richmond being able to deliver in even 2026?

At this point, whatever stadium is built is likely going to be for a new team... whether AAA, AA, or even lower. 

 I'm sorry, but I'm embarrassed for my city.  I can't shake my head and face-palm hard enough.

[Rooster]

maybe I missed something - didnt we just hear they delayed buying the sportsbackers stadium so they could cover the increased costs of the stadium?  Sounds like they're building the stadium - is there some indication they're not?

[I miss RVA]

11 hours ago, Rooster said:

maybe I missed something - didnt we just hear they delayed buying the sportsbackers stadium so they could cover the increased costs of the stadium?  Sounds like they're building the stadium - is there some indication they're not?

They are - but that's in Phase 3 of the overall development - and who knows how far down the road that'll be.

[Rooster]

Isnt the stadium first?

[I miss RVA]

1 hour ago, Rooster said:

Isnt the stadium first?

Looks like it's hitting third in the batting order. Check out the graphic. Soccer stadium is shown as Phase 3.

 

[Rooster]

I meant the baseball stadium, nevermind

[Flood Zone]

@Rooster your post above is correct. The most recent reporting is that they've juggled around things to prioritize building the stadium. Still some steps needed before they break ground, which, not unreasonably, has many on this board uneasy. 

That said, I'd be absolutely floored if MLB didn't grant the exemption. Its standards and timelines don't relate to anything in the real world, and the Squirrels have thrived here since day 1.

[Flood Zone]

I don't know if this counts as a development, per se, but the RTD quotes Lincoln Saunders as anticipating that the groundbreaking for the new ballpark will be "April to June-ish." The article also states that no fees have been assessed by MLB as of yet for 2024 and includes a quote from Saunders that strongly implies MLB is anticipating the ballpark will open in 2026.

ETA: RTD article

Edited January 25 by Flood Zone