Diamond Area / Hermitage Rd Corridor / Ownby District

[I miss RVA]

The latest rendering of the entire Diamond District buildout, while as we projected in this forum a couple of years ago would definitely be "meh" from the standpoint of being limited to what (unfortunately) seems to be "Richmond-scale" in terms of size (particularly height) and impact, actually isn't too bad. While it doesn't contain as much height as I'd like to see, overall this particular product does appear to be an improvement over what was originally rendered, particularly with a reduction in the size of the public park and generally getting ride of the serpentine layout of the park in favor of bringing residential and commercial development much closer to the ballpark and formulating a stronger street system.

My terrible-eyesight count seems to put the tallest buildings in that "Richmond-scale" range of between 11 and 13 stories (12 being the most common) - though the hotel next to the ballpark fronting Arthur Ashe looks to be more in the 15 to 16 story range and is a pretty cool design. Seems like the developers (architects?) have REALLY beefed up the urban look and feel - and this has the potential to create a strong urban street presence around the ballpark.

So even despite it being limited to "Richmond-scale" - believe it or not, I actually like this rendering. If we get this fully built out to the level of density, intensity and tightness that this rendering shows, I won't complain.

Thoughts?

Rendering courtesy of Richmond BizSense:

[RiverYuppy]

I think it looks pretty good.

I don't see any surface parking lots or buildings under 5 stories. I don't think that could be said for any stretch of RVA--even downtown.

[I miss RVA]

28 minutes ago, RiverYuppy said:

I think it looks pretty good.

I don't see any surface parking lots or buildings under 5 stories. I don't think that could be said for any stretch of RVA--even downtown.

  % -- that's a good point! Definitely can't be said for downtown RVA.

I've been kinda studying it most of the morning and I've gotta say, the more I look at it, the more I like it. The massing around the ballpark is MUCH more impressive than what was depicted in the early conceptual renderings. Really my only real complaint is the lack of height along Arthur Ashe Boulevard and in the far northern part of the development, though I can 100% understand why the developers/architects would want to mass most of the height in much closer proximity to the ballpark. 

All-in-all, I'm reasonably impressed. Not blown away, but definitely becoming increasingly impressed by and happy with this being the potential deliverables for the Diamond District.

 

Edited April 8 by I miss RVA

[I miss RVA]

On 4/8/2024 at 7:29 AM, 123fakestreet said:

https://richmondbizsense.com/2024/04/08/city-pitching-new-financing-plan-for-diamond-district-amid-state-sales-tax-uncertainty/

Stadium to break ground in June.  I'll believe it when I see it. Somehow I doubt this hitch in financing is going to just sail through.

UPDATE:

Jonathan Spiers (RBS) and Eric Kolenich (RT-D) have new reporting regarding City Council's support for a proposed significant change in financing for the new ballpark and the Diamond District. The measure was presented to the council yesterday. There's general consensus that the project needs to get moving as in NOW, despite the shift in risk to the city.

From today's Richmond BizSense:

https://richmondbizsense.com/2024/04/09/we-have-got-to-get-shovels-in-the-ground-council-plays-ball-on-stadium-bond-plan/

From today's Richmond Times-Dispatch:

https://richmond.com/news/local/business/development/flying-squirrels-minor-league-stadium-bonds/article_98ca8220-f5cd-11ee-b84c-affba0c8193f.html

Edited April 9 by I miss RVA

[Flood Zone]

This is going to happen. 

[I miss RVA]

16 minutes ago, Flood Zone said:

This is going to happen. 

From your keyboard to God's eyes, my friend! 

[Flood Zone]

Who wants to tell the RBS commenter that, no, the Flying Squirrels are not ultimately owned by the San Francisco Giants?

[I miss RVA]

2 hours ago, Flood Zone said:

Who wants to tell the RBS commenter that, no, the Flying Squirrels are not ultimately owned by the San Francisco Giants?

Done.

Next?

[I miss RVA]

Okay - my response got taken down and flagged as possible spam. I think it was an automated computer thing - I tried to go back in and make a minor correction and when I went to save it, I got the message that it was "pending review" - and when I refreshed the page, my long-azz response was gone.

It's happened before. Drives me nuts.

[Child2021]

Well and there you have it, another petition being floated around:

No Public Debt for Private Profit (everyaction.com)

[whw53]

Happy opening day from the Diamond!

[BigBobbyG]

27 minutes ago, Child2021 said:

Well and there you have it, another petition being floated around:

No Public Debt for Private Profit (everyaction.com)

I swear I am going to lose my mind if Richmond For All gets another project killed. I’m hoping it’s basically a done deal but I recommend people write the council giving their support to this. 
 

Edit: I was pleasantly surprised to see the Twitter post they made about this have very little traction. 

Edited April 9 by BigBobbyG
Additional info

[whw53]

Richmond For All ...(Ben Kenobi voice) that is a name I have not heard in a long time...

 Yea they petered out or became redundant over last few years as social justice frenzy receded.

Last I heard of them they had put a bunch of social media info out on teachers who went on strike but didn't get permission or something to popularize info (not clear on this and dont care to look up) so got a bunch of slack from the union and other groups idk that was a couple years back but it was a big deal on lefty twitter/insta which is the only place they mattered. 

Edited April 10 by whw53

[I miss RVA]

BREAKING:

Phase 1 of the Diamond District is getting bigger!!

Eric Kolenich has reporting in today's RT-D that the city and developers of the Diamond District are planning to add an additional 700 residential units to Phase 1 of the development, bringing the total number of units in this initial portion of the redevelopment to 1,700. According to Kolenich's reporting, these 700 additional units would be built along Arthur Ashe Boulevard.

My guess is that we'll see taller, beefier construction along Arthur Ashe than what the most recent renderings depict. (???)

Now - I thought Phase 1 included ONLY the site of new ballpark and the stretch of land east of the ballpark to Hermitage Road, and stopped at the street that would bisect the Diamond District on the north side of the stadium, south of The Diamond's current location. (???)  Something's not adding up in terms of WHERE these new units would go.

One interesting note: most -- if not almost all -- of the new construction will be rental units, with some 24 units planned as 2-over-2 condos. Also, 20% of the rental units will be income-based.

Another interesting note: the big serpentine park WAS shaved down from 11 to 8 acres to accommodate the significantly expanded footprints of both the ballpark AND the residential development, which definitely looks like it brings the residential and commercial development in much tighter to the ballpark, creating a MUCH more urban environment than the previous/original iteration of the development.

Either way - there were some VERY interesting takeaways from the article. Kolenich attributes Thalhimer's Jason Guillot's as suggesting/saying that economic conditions that are making it challenging for developers to build large residential buildings MIGHT -- counterintuitively -- actually lead to TALLER buildings. (????)

From Eric's reporting:

Because interest rates are higher, builders have to be as efficient as possible, and it can be more cost effective to build a 10-story building than a seven-story building, Guillot said. Builders generally use wood only for five stories of a building. Going above five stories requires switching from wood to steel and concrete, which costs significantly more.

So the sixth and seventh stories of a building can cost far more than the first five stories. To get a better return on investment, it makes sense for developers to build taller buildings and bring in more rent revenue. Despite high interest rates, the developers have an advantage because they are partnering with the city of Richmond, Guillot said.

@wrldcoupe4 & @upzoningisgood - can you clarify what he means by this?  Does it make sense to actually build taller buildings in this case? Is the reporter either not understanding or mischaracterizing this? I find it confusing.

If this IS the case, does RVA's relatively small (relative to our competitors) market size and relative lack of demand counteract this? In other words, is this something that makes sense in markets like Austin, Nashville, the Carolina cities - where demand is significantly higher - but won't work one iota in Richmond?

I'm asking because I honestly want to manage my OWN expectations and not get my hopes up for something that will lead to even more agita than what this city already causes me.

ANOTHER takeaway - apparently Phase 2 will go out to bid again? Diamond District Partners will have the right to first refusal, but will have to match any offer above their current bid for buying the land. Wow...

The city has also published a timeline and milestones for Phase 1 (see below). ALSO - the "overhead" rendering is the latest, which matches the cool-looking artistic rendering (see below).

From today's Richmond Times-Dispatch:

https://richmond.com/news/local/business/real-estate/flying-squirrels-baseball-stadium/article_c63bb896-f6a4-11ee-a47a-97d09af56795.html

Edited April 11 by I miss RVA

[I miss RVA]

Something came to mind while I was looking at the new renderings: what's the over/under that CoStar nudges Dominion or any other big RVA corporate entity for naming rights? Does Atlantic Union Bank have enough muscle to grab naming rights? Would any of the out-of-town banks want naming rights - or is it more likely that it'll be a Richmond-based company (or at least a big RVA-presenced company such as Capital One)?

Here are a few potentials (ranked in order of what I think might be the most likely):

• CoStar Field
• Dominion Energy Park
• Atlantic Union Field
• Altria Stadium
• Capital One Park
• PFG Park
• Genworth Financial Field

Mayyyyyyyybe Carmax throws their hat (or steering wheel?) into the ring... Dunno if I see Markel or ARKO jumping into the fray.

Thoughts? 

[upzoningisgood]

8 hours ago, I miss RVA said:

Despite high interest rates, the developers have an advantage because they are partnering with the city of Richmond, Guillot said.

@wrldcoupe4 & @upzoningisgood - can you clarify what he means by this?

I have no insight into this project specifically, but I suspect what he’s getting at is:

1) It should be easier to rezone (if necessary) and get permits because the city has a direct interest in the project’s success. I’m not saying the city will bend the rules, but I’m sure Diamond District will be pushed to the front of the line for any dealings with the city, leading to faster permitting. 
 

2) It’s probably easier to get debt because the master-planned nature will give banks more confidence in the submarket. If Diamond District goes out for 3rd-party equity, the same holds. 
 

[I miss RVA]

33 minutes ago, upzoningisgood said:

I have no insight into this project specifically, but I suspect what he’s getting at is:

1) It should be easier to rezone (if necessary) and get permits because the city has a direct interest in the project’s success. I’m not saying the city will bend the rules, but I’m sure Diamond District will be pushed to the front of the line for any dealings with the city, leading to faster permitting. 
 

2) It’s probably easier to get debt because the master-planned nature will give banks more confidence in the submarket. If Diamond District goes out for 3rd-party equity, the same holds. 
 

Thanks, @upzoningisgood. Very much appreciate your insights and knowledge. For us laymen and armchair observers, all of this is very confusing. I couldn't cobble together in my brain how if it's SOOO cost-prohibitive to build a 7-story building instead of a 5-story building, how it could be more cost-EFFECTIVE to built it out to 10 or 12 stories.

I would imagine that based on market size, though, height would have a certain threshold of diminishing return, no?  Even under those more favorable circumstances?  Maybe that ceiling might be 15 stories here... but that same ceiling might be 25-30 stories in Raleigh... and 40 in Nashville... and 50-plus in Charlotte or Austin.  (And as we're seeing in NYC - those insane "supertall" towers that are dwarfing Midtown Manhattan, as if anyone ever thought THAT was possible...)

Edited April 12 by I miss RVA

[upzoningisgood]

2 hours ago, I miss RVA said:

Thanks, @upzoningisgood. Very much appreciate your insights and knowledge. For us laymen and armchair observers, all of this is very confusing. I couldn't cobble together in my brain how if it's SOOO cost-prohibitive to build a 7-story building instead of a 5-story building, how it could be more cost-EFFECTIVE to built it out to 10 or 12 stories.

I would imagine that based on market size, though, height would have a certain threshold of diminishing return, no?  Even under those more favorable circumstances?  Maybe that ceiling might be 15 stories here... but that same ceiling might be 25-30 stories in Raleigh... and 40 in Nashville... and 50-plus in Charlotte or Austin.  (And as we're seeing in NYC - those insane "supertall" towers that are dwarfing Midtown Manhattan, as if anyone ever thought THAT was possible...)

Once you go above 6 stories, you have to use steel. So in a way, you might think of the additional cost to convert the first 6 floors to steel as a fixed cost for buildings 7+ stories. Every floor you add divides that fixed cost across more units. A 7-story building divides that fixed cost across one new floor of units. A 10-story building divides it across 4 stories. 

 

[CitiWalker]

How tall is the hotel supposed to be?

[I miss RVA]

2 hours ago, CitiWalker said:

How tall is the hotel supposed to be?

My uneducated guess is 12 stories (???) -- though I've seen renderings (admittedly older) that looked closer to 15 or so. Not saying that the developers have "capped" heights (recall that during the RFP process, Maritza Pechin pushed hard for (and I believe got) the cap on height restriction removed. So there was no cap on the Diamond District from TOD-1 zoning nor any setback requirements from B-4 zoning.

Allllllllllll of that said - my best guess is probably 12. Kinda "meh" - but it is what it is. I'd be curious to know what hotelier would operate it. Obviously, it ain't gonna be a Super-8, a Days In or a Motel-6. But with an almost 300-room AC Hotel (Marriott) planned for just over half a mile south (Myers Street), I'm curious how this will shake out.

Edited April 12 by I miss RVA

[I miss RVA]

UPDATE:

Jonathan Spiers has additional reporting in today's RBS that's pretty in depth. I haven't had a chance yet to digest it, so I'll reserve any commentary for later, if I have time. Busy day today.

I did, however, cull out a few nuggets that get into some of the nitty-gritty of how the development looks like it will be broken out. Rather than quote and comment, for the sake of expediency, I'll copy and paste here, directly from RBS. These are important points that Jonathan explains and they give us a much clearer picture of what we might expect. From his reporting:

• Previously, when the development team was responsible for all of the first phase, which totaled 22 acres including the 7-acre stadium, it had agreed to pay $16 million for the land and to buy $20 million in bonds to support the stadium development. It would no longer need to buy bonds under the new plan.
• Where the first phase previously planned to consist of more than 1,100 residential units, 58,000 square feet of retail, a 180-room hotel and an 11-acre public park, the larger first phase allows for more development within it but staggers the delivery. The park also has been dropped in size to 7 acres.
• The first subphase is to include the hotel, nearly 900 housing units with about 160 units for lower-income residents, 20,000 square feet of commercial space, infrastructure and park space.
• Phase 1B, which includes part of the current Diamond property, is planned for 335 housing units, 124 of them for lower-income residents and 10 for-sale units, 12,400 square feet of commercial space, infrastructure and park space. That subphase would also involve the demolition of Sports Backers Stadium and The Diamond.
• Phase 1C involves 467 housing units with 54 of them for lower-income residents and 14 for sale, over 100,000 square feet of commercial space, and infrastructure and park space.

Note: while I didn't see the figure expressly stated in Jonathan's article, a quick-N-dirty calculation gives us a total (of the three subphases) of 1,702 residential units - as was reported yesterday in the RT-D, a substantial increase over the original plan.

Wow... well, we shall see. Fingers crossed and praying everything somehow works.

BTW - no new graphics or renderings to post - everything in the article has been published recently. 

From today's Richmond BizSense:

https://richmondbizsense.com/2024/04/11/newly-filed-ordinances-detail-new-game-plan-for-diamond-district-financing/

Edited April 12 by I miss RVA

[123fakestreet]

The AA development across from the diamond. Otis? I don't know anymore. It's finishing up.

 

 

[I miss RVA]

2 hours ago, 123fakestreet said:

The AA development across from the diamond. Otis? I don't know anymore. It's finishing up.

 

 

That's the Novel.

Man... it looks REALLLLLLLLLY sweet!

AMAZING shot, @123fakestreet. You know what THAT means... first day of the week... first piece of RVA/UP Silver Hardware awarded for the week. Really well done. Super picture. Mazal Tov, my friend.

[I miss RVA]

An opinion piece in today's "Richmond 5 x 5" regarding the city as real estate developer.

https://rva5x5.substack.com/p/diamonds-arent-forever

[BigBobbyG]

21 hours ago, I miss RVA said:

An opinion piece in today's "Richmond 5 x 5" regarding the city as real estate developer.

https://rva5x5.substack.com/p/diamonds-arent-forever

How do you interpret this article? I really like Baliles but is he advocating that we shouldn't be doing this? I may be reading to negatively into what essentially is just an explanation of the situation.

I (as I'm sure it has been seen here) have my biases but the way I see it, bonds are a tool to be used. If we aren't willing to do that for a development of this scale that will bring such density what are we ever going to actually do?  Not to mention I'm going to pitch a fit if we lose one of our remaining few sports teams due to this.