Diamond Area / Hermitage Rd Corridor / Ownby District

[I miss RVA]

18 minutes ago, BigBobbyG said:

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.

I get the impression he's suggesting we shouldn't be doing this. That said, I'm not at all in agreement with Baliles. 

You raised a huge point: if we DON'T do this, then exactly WHAT are we going to do? I'm not a financial or a real estate expert - just an armchair quarterback with some educational background in urban planning. My lens focuses on what kind of development is needed - what the final product needs to be, needs to look like, how it needs to function, what it will do. I have no real understanding of the machinations of how to get there. In that sense - as you correctly said - we need to get this done. Period. Ditto City Center. That redev process has dragged on WAY too long.

And even from afar, I'm with you: the Squirrels. Thank God we have them. I'd give anything if we could somehow get hockey back - and at the AHL level - and an NBA G-league team here. Aside from that, losing the Squirrels would be heartbreaking.

Edited April 16 by I miss RVA

[RiverYuppy]

Reading that just made me more bitter about Navy Hill. It solved all those problems. 

His points aren't wrong. I still support the development.

I'll leave it at that.

[vaceltic]

I’m appreciative of Jon Balliles’ thorough explanation of all the changes with this development scheme.

FWIW, Balilles worked in the Richmond planning department, was on city council, and started out as an advisor to Stoney’s first mayoral administration. So I don’t think what he’s presenting is some subjective, emotional opinion piece for or against keeping a sports team in Richmond. 

That being said, he is being critical of all of the changes against all of the publicized statements up until now. The financing. The execution schedule. Even the winning development team has significantly changed from what was selected out of the RFP process.

I just come back to thinking about all that time and money completely wasted on the grossly flawed Navy Hill plan the first go-around. We’d already have a new baseball stadium AND city center’s redevelopment would’ve long been underway by this point. 

[123fakestreet]

3 hours ago, vaceltic said:

FWIW, Balilles worked in the Richmond planning department, was on city council, and started out as an advisor to Stoney’s first mayoral administration. So I don’t think what he’s presenting is some subjective, emotional opinion piece for or against keeping a sports team in Richmond. 

That being said, he is being critical of all of the changes against all of the publicized statements up until now. The financing. The execution schedule. Even the winning development team has significantly changed from what was selected out of the RFP process.

I just come back to thinking about all that time and money completely wasted on the grossly flawed Navy Hill plan the first go-around. We’d already have a new baseball stadium AND city center’s redevelopment would’ve long been underway by this point. 

I don't have any problem with the city playing developer, per se. Plenty of cities seem to be fine at executing projects. Richmond is just terrible at it. If that's in the planning and admin, or the lack of political support, I'm not sure. But that's my only problem, they FAIL, almost every single time. At this point I wish they'd stop just because I don't want to get my hopes up or hear the arguing from NIMBYs, and look at the nice mock ups that will never come to fruition.

[I miss RVA]

1 hour ago, 123fakestreet said:

I don't have any problem with the city playing developer, per se. Plenty of cities seem to be fine at executing projects. Richmond is just terrible at it. If that's in the planning and admin, or the lack of political support, I'm not sure. But that's my only problem, they FAIL, almost every single time. At this point I wish they'd stop just because I don't want to get my hopes up or hear the arguing from NIMBYs, and look at the nice mock ups that will never come to fruition.

My friend, you just laid out every single reason why the city should NOT be LARPing as real estate developer!  

[vaceltic]

2 hours ago, I miss RVA said:

My friend, you just laid out every single reason why the city should NOT be LARPing as real estate developer!  

Just wait for the City Center convention center hotel scheme to release.

I predict we will see history repeating itself again. Untransparent attendance figures for the convention center itself to justify the need for the hotel’s size. Wildly optimistic occupancy projections for the proposed hotel’s success. Lots of debt placed onto the city’s debt limit to make it happen. This happens over and over again from city to city, as it’s the only way convention hotels get built. They get built on lies

Save Las Vegas and Orlando, these are not financial successes. But the politicians will lead you believe they will be.

[Downtowner]

Watch people wine and complain like they did with navy hill. City center plan I hope I’m wrong but will be navy hill 2.0. They will wind and complain and say we don’t need any of that stuff we don’t need housing or jobs or hotels. Screw it we will just live on the street. The way we have all become incredibly comfortable with just being mediocre or okay is not a good thing at all. I wish people could become uncomfortable to become comfortable I had to do that alot in my life and most times it worked some others it sucked but I got over it and through with it. Just something we need to be better at is being uncomfortable to be comfortable, need a lot more housing than we have. If you ever want the housing crisis to ever be over with you need you build mass residential building and yes with height and plenty of it. Yes condos and apartments. Heck I’ll take row homes too in areas.

[Flood Zone]

20 hours ago, BigBobbyG said:

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.

He's explaining the two truisms of stadium/arena projects: (1) they're always bungled to some degree, and (2) the sales pitch is always rosier than the reality.

There are plenty of examples of both, but reference to Gwinnett, Ga. is sufficient.

[Child2021]

https://richmond.com/zzstyling/view-oped-sig/stoney-stadium-gamble-richmond-cannot-afford/article_d77bded8-fb40-11ee-8061-cfcd48efca57.html#tracking-source=home-top-story

Paul Goldman has spoken, and its not looking too good.

[BigBobbyG]

Man I am so tired. I acknowledge that a lot of the bungling of this is due to the city seemingly being incapable of moving something across the finish line but I swear we get more of these op-eds than anywhere else when it comes time to put up or shut up. Chesterfield and Henrico never seem to have this problem where negative public input overrules everything. Not even disputing his points as I admit that I don't know enough to prove him wrong but its like damn, why does it always have to be like this?

 

Side note: Is Paul Goldman a kingmaker in regards to this? By that I mean we should expect the city council to reverse course on this due to his comments? I emailed all of them and got back 6 emails explicitly stating they intended to vote for this.

Edited April 17 by BigBobbyG
Extra word

[I miss RVA]

I don't know how much is new here vs how much is rehash - but here's RBS's latest reporting. The $1.5M was approved yesterday in a special meeting of the EDA board.

From today's Richmond BizSense:

https://richmondbizsense.com/2024/04/17/city-eda-approves-1-5m-more-for-diamond-district-ballpark-design/

[I miss RVA]

4 hours ago, BigBobbyG said:

Man I am so tired. I acknowledge that a lot of the bungling of this is due to the city seemingly being incapable of moving something across the finish line but I swear we get more of these op-eds than anywhere else when it comes time to put up or shut up. Chesterfield and Henrico never seem to have this problem where negative public input overrules everything. Not even disputing his points as I admit that I don't know enough to prove him wrong but its like damn, why does it always have to be like this?

 

Side note: Is Paul Goldman a kingmaker in regards to this? By that I mean we should expect the city council to reverse course on this due to his comments? I emailed all of them and got back 6 emails explicitly stating they intended to vote for this.

I get where Paul Goldman is coming from, but I totally, 100% disagree with him. At some point you have to scheitze or get off the pot. He's proposing we stay on the pot and fritter away yet another large-scale redevelopment.

Folks, at the age of 61 and having followed this stuff since before I was 10 years old, I've seen this movie over and over and over. I dunno what it is about this wonderful, beloved, treasured city of ours - but for the love of all things Ukrops and Thalhimers, RVA seems to be eternally stuck in a "Groundhog Day"-like "infinite go-loop" when it comes to redevelopment projects. And in the end - all we have to show for it is the same ocean of surface parking lots we had 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60 years ago.

Can SOMEONE ... ANYONE... PLEASE make this stop???

Other cities are lapping us -- not just like we're standing still -- but like we've got the car in full-on-reverse and the gas pedal mashed to the floor... and we keep getting stuck in the same "wash, rinse, repeat" scene over and over and over.

[vaceltic]

Calm down. In the 20 years I’ve lived here, Richmond has changed DRASTICALLY! I think mostly for the better:

1) Manchester is rapidly becoming a real neighborhood again.

2) Scott’s Addition has completely transformed from industrial to a trendy entertainment district. 

3) Shockoe Bottom is becoming more dense, as well as the Monroe Park area and midtown

4) Co-Star is building a 20+ riverfront tower (despite the city’s Navy Hill efforts to squeeze them into the other side of downtown)

5) Riverfront Amphitheater

6) Expanding the James River Park System and connecting pedestrian bridge, capital trail

7) BRT anyone?!

Rocketts Landing is now a place (mostly Henrico side though?)

9) Sauer Center Phase 1 underway 

The transformation here has been nothing short of awesome to grow along with. “Other cities” are envious of the urbanization and walkability Richmond already has for its size. 

Edited April 17 by vaceltic

[BigBobbyG]

18 minutes ago, vaceltic said:

Calm down. In the 20 years I’ve lived here, Richmond has changed DRASTICALLY! I think mostly for the better:

1) Manchester is rapidly becoming a real neighborhood again.

2) Scott’s Addition has completely transformed from industrial to a trendy entertainment district. 

3) Shockoe Bottom is becoming more dense, as well as the Monroe Park area and midtown

4) Co-Star is building a 20+ riverfront tower (despite the city’s Navy Hill efforts to squeeze them into the other side of downtown)

5) Riverfront Amphitheater

6) Expanding the James River Park System and connecting pedestrian bridge, capital trail

7) BRT anyone?!

Rocketts Landing is now a place (mostly Henrico side though?)

9) Sauer Center Phase 1 underway 

The transformation here has been nothing short of awesome to grow along with. “Other cities” are envious of the urbanization and walkability Richmond already has for its size. 

You are of course right and I appreciate the reality check, this isn’t all doom and gloom. 

I just hate the idea of giving up something that we have had  successfully for multiple decades that is beloved by so many (minor league baseball in general I know the squirrels haven’t been here for that long). 

We already did that with the Colosseum and while I’m only 31 I remember going there multiple times a year as a kid and college student and loved it. I hope that doesn’t happen again. And as always, the housing that is at risk of falling through is the most important thing of all. 

Anyways, that’s enough from me on this for now, the project isn’t dead despite these op-Ed’s so I need to stop acting like it. When I emailed the city councilors they all stated that they supported this change. Appreciate the list of exciting developments happening here in our lovely city! 

[I miss RVA]

6 minutes ago, vaceltic said:

Calm down. In the 20 years I’ve lived here, Richmond has changed DRASTICALLY! I think mostly for the better:

1) Manchester is rapidly becoming a real neighborhood again.

2) Scott’s Addition has completely transformed from industrial to a trendy entertainment district. 

3) Shockoe Bottom is becoming more dense, as well as the Monroe Park area and midtown

4) Co-Star is building a 20+ riverfront tower (despite the city’s Navy Hill efforts to squeeze them into the other side of downtown)

5) Riverfront Amphitheater

6) Expanding the James River Park System and connecting pedestrian bridge, capital trail

7) BRT anyone?!

Rocketts Landing is now a place (mostly Henrico side though?)

9) Sauer Center Phase 1 underway 

The transformation here has been nothing short of awesome to grow along with. “Other cities” are envious of the urbanization and walkability Richmond already has for its size. 

See my post in the Scott's Addition thread. I'll simply use the term "unprecedented" to what has to be a truly, legitimately "historic' level of continuous and largely simultaneous construction of multiple projects city-wide and metro-wide.

Just for clarity - my lament (previous post) is the lament that we keep getting stuck in this ridiculous "failure" cycle whenever the city tries to play land developer. What the city does best is what it should stick to - drawing up plans. The Richmond 300 Master Plan is solid, as are the various ancillary small area plans that have accompanied it. Leave the groundbreaking, the construction and - most of all - the bloody FINANCING - to the private sector. Spend a few tax dollars on beefing up the economic development arm - and partner with the other economic development agencies to recruit businesses to relocate, build facilities, open an HQ2 or an ops center here. That's what those other cities are doing off the chain well - and where we could stand to pick up our game a bit.

I do believe that Maritza Pechin's departure last year HAS significantly impacted the city's planning and economic development office, and Leonard Sledge's upcoming departure will be yet another serious blow to that office. Both did tremendous jobs in helping push the city forward - and their shoes are very large and will be challenging to fill.

As for the other cities - I highly doubt those other cities give two shekels about RVA's attributes - particularly those cities whose populations are in the mid-to-upper six figures (and knocking on the door of 1 million) and whose metro areas are all well north of 2 or 2.5 million. They envy us? Highly doubtful - not given all the success -- particularly economic development and population growth -- they're enjoying and have been enjoying over the past 20, 30, 40 years. Let's be honest: it's now to the point that it's becoming an apples-to-oranges comparison because they've grown to the point that they're way beyond us in terms of that all important metric of market size and by extension the level of development and growth larger markets can attract and sustain, particularly in more challenging economic conditions that impact project development, financing, construction, etc. I'll give you this: we're on the ladder moving up - no question. But these other cities - as I've heard @eandslee say about them (and particularly their airports)  have already arrived - and they've moved on a completely different ladder now than the one we're still on - and they're ascending THAT latter at an incredible rate. So to them, I doff my Yankees baseball cap and say: Mazal Tov!

This is not to take away ANYTHING from the list of accomplishments you listed. Again, see my post over in the Scott's thread - it mirrors what you're saying just in a more generalized and condensed way. I'm absolutely blown away by all the amazing changes that are ongoing. We literally have so many projects happening at the same time that it's challenging for even US urban/economic development nerds to keep up with.  And that's a VERY good thing!

Truly - it's unprecedented in my lifetime - and it's super exciting to see.

[Brent114]

You should really visit the cities that you keep bringing up. They are meh and aren’t really growing in the meaningful way that  you think they are.  
 

You would be overwhelmingly disappointed with Raleigh in particular.   More people spread out in larger  vinyl-sided apartment complexes doesn’t make a place more attractive.  A single high-rise nestled in pine trees doesn’t make a place feel bigger.   It just makes a place bloated and boring.   On paper RDU is amazing. After ten minutes there you’re looking for someone to punch for making you invest so much energy following their development.  Roanoke has a better, more vibrant  downtown. 
 

One more time for those in the back:  Richmond isn’t the kind of place that is attractive to people seeking low rent and office work.  It just isn’t.   It will continue to be a place for single, introverted people.   The old building stock  is already overbuilt for the population.  There isn’t that high-rise in the pine trees because there are blocks and blocks (and blocks and blocks) of houses, apartments and converted industrial sites already here.  The five story building built on the vacant lot between two established blocks does more to make the city complete and vibrant than one or two 30 floor towers  beside a rancher. 

Edited April 18 by Brent114

[vaceltic]

I guess I just don’t care what Charlotte, Austin, Nashville, Raleigh, etc. ARE doing. You seem to. Richmond is growing. Richmond is thriving. And yes it still has ALOT of challenges to overcome even with anll the transformation that’s occurred. That’s all I care about.

[I miss RVA]

13 minutes ago, Brent114 said:

You should really visit the cities that you keep bringing up. They are meh and aren’t really growing in the meaningful way that  you think they are.  
 

You would be overwhelmingly disappointed with Raleigh in particular.   More people spread out in larger  vinyl-sided apartment complexes doesn’t make a place more attractive.  A single high-rise nestled in pine trees doesn’t make a place feel bigger.   It just makes a place bloated and boring.   On paper RDU is amazing. After ten minutes there you’re looking for someone to punch for making you invest so much energy following their development.  Roanoke has a better, more vibrant  downtown. 
 

One more time for those in the back:  Richmond isn’t the kind of place that is attractive to people seeking low rent and office work.  It just isn’t.   It will continue to be a place for single, introverted people.   The old building stock  is already overbuilt for the population.  There isn’t that high-rise in the pine trees because there are blocks and blocks (and blocks and blocks) of houses, apartments and converted industrial sites already here.  The five story building built on the vacant lot between two established blocks does more to make the city complete and vibrant than one or two 30 floor towers  beside a rancher. 

While I don't disagree with you at all, I have to offer a slightly different approach. My laments/points (when bringing up these other cities) has absolutely NOTHING whatsoever to do with what they look like. I frankly don't care AT ALL what they look like, with PERHAPS the exception of Charlotte, which at almost 900K population (2.8 M metro) has managed to develop a MASSIVE downtown skyline (both in terms of height and sheer number/density of high-rises) that quite frankly is starting to look like a miniature version of what's here in Chicago). It's not about the aesthetics. It's about sheer numbers and how those numbers translate in terms of garnering economic growth and development in what we ALL know is an extremely competitive environment.

We've read it on here God-Himself only knows how many times - the reason huge projects work in cities like Charlotte, Atlanta, Austin, even Raleigh & Nashville, that don't "pencil" here (yet - I think that's going to change eventually) - is due to demand. And demand is driven in large part by market size. (That's not the whole ball of wax, but it plays a significant part). When the post-pandemic economy got slammed with supply chain disruptions, rising -- and sustained -- inflation that spiked the costs of materials, and now - particularly - still high interest rates that have yet to be pulled back, we started seeing projects in the pipeline here start shutting down one after another after another. "Pumping/tapping the brakes" I believe is how our friends at RBS so often termed it. In reading through some articles regarding how construction in cities was being impacted, the one very GLARING point that jumped out at me and landed squarely between my eyes, was the line (paraphrasing): "...with higher interest rates and higher construction costs, developers and lending institutions are pulling back and focusing more on tried-and-true areas that are generally more successful during economic crunches -- specifically, larger markets/major cities."

Much as you, I, and damn-near EVERYONE in our little online community would LOVE to tout RVA as a "major" city in a "large" market - we all know she ain't that. Mid-size, for sure - and on the low end of that, quite honestly (but I think that's about to change for the better, too, given demographic shifts & gains over the past four years, particularly if we can sustain the momentum through the rest of this decade). 

Now you NAILED it re: RVA not being the kind of place for low rent/office worker bees. Rather, it's (for WHATEVER reason) apparently become a haven for introverted singletons. Great! So can we get about 30,000 of said introverted singletons to take up residency in downtown RVA? (Oh wait - we don't have the housing stock downtown just yet, but we DO have an ocean of surface parking lots in Monroe Ward that could be transformed into a forest of high-rise residential buildings!) Right now, the downtown population is somewhere around 9,000, plus or minus. According to city records, In the late 1940s-early 1950s, it was just shy of 30,000 (something like 29,700-something). And at 61, I'm old enough (just barely) to remember when downtown was a BEEHIVE of human activity just about every day, whether it was in the legacy Financial District, around the Capitol, or - particularly - the amazing legacy retail core of Broad and Grace streets. And this was with the downtown population already having fallen dramatically with the obliteration of huge swaths of downtown neighborhoods (Jackson Ward, Gilpen) by I-95/.64 - and by the city's decision to level pretty much all of the old, largely residential "Court End/Navy Hill" neighborhood in the '60s and convert it into the location of a bunch of low-slung municipal buildings, including the Coliseum.

How ironic that at in the Richmond 300 master plan - and in the City Center SAP - just about ALLLLLLLLLLLL of those decrepit, low-slung muni buildings are slated to go hasta la bye bye in favor of - high-density, high-rise RESIDENTIAL development!!   And I say - BRING... IT... ON!!!!!

What the city looks like in terms of housing stock is, to me, the icing. What I want is the cake, my dear friend. I want the PEOPLE in HUGE numbers living, working, playing, and BEING in Richmond, particularly downtown. Recall me saying on here many many times how my urban & regional planning professors at VCU when I was there in undergrad in the early-mid '80s kept preaching a sermon that the ONLY way to fully resurrect downtown Richmond was to pack in AT LEAST (their term, not mine) 30,000 residents. Which means building vertically, because downtown (like the rest of the city) is fully land-locked. My profs hammered home the concept of "critical mass" being the key to unlock downtown's revival and transformation into a thriving, vibrant 24-7-365 place.

As our friend @upzoningisgood has pointed out, to get people living downtown, there has to be a REASON for them to live there. There needs to be DEMAND. Something needs to be there to create the level of demand that folks are clamoring to get there, be there. Whatever "it" is - places like the five cities I've mentioned ALL seem to have it. I did some research looking for some hard data, again using Charlotte as the example of how critical mass is making "Uptown" (their downtown) thrive. The "Uptown" district (which I think is about relatively the same size in land area as our downtown, give or take) has the following:

• A residential population of more than 35,000 (and growing. New residential high-rises are being built with more in the pipeline - and I don't mean 5, 10 or 15 story buildings - I'm talking 35 to 45 stories or even more).
• A downtown workforce of more than 120,000. (even WITH the pandemic having changed the dynamic of the workplace paradigm)
• Some 6,600 hotel rooms - with more hotel construction on the way - including several "big name" hotels you find in places like New York, Chicago, Atlanta, Dallas. 

NOTE: I believe these figures were good as of 2022.

In other words, they have developed, sustained and are continuing to grow what my profs called "critical mass", and they're doing it in the three most important areas for any downtown: residential population, size of the daily weekday workforce, and continuous, large numbers of tourists/business travelers. AND, it should be noted, they're beefing up in all three areas with continued new development - much the same way cities like Chicago have been doing.

NOTE 2: I feel like I need to shower now and ritually cleanse myself of the stain of "touting" the achievements of one of our chief economic competitors, a city/metro about which I am so loathe that I purposely refuse to speak its name and only begrudgingly acknowledge its existence.  It is Voldemort to me.  

So what's my point? Richmond ABSOLUTELY could be doing this, too! There's NO reason whatsoever that we can't. We've already HAD 30,000 people living downtown before. We can do it again! Now - okay, we've never had a downtown workforce of 120K,  but I DO seem to recall at one point (maybe in the '80s?) some pretty lofty figures being thrown around like 70,000? Maybe that's too high, maybe that's too low?- but I remember being FLOORED that downtown RVA had THAT many workers rolling in five days a week. Okay -things have changed post-pandemic. Still...  Oh - and hotels - no idea how many rooms we currently have - but if City Center EVER gets off the ground, that's 550 rooms right there in one shot (if we get that 40-story hotel). The convention center is doing a pretty brisk business (from what I understand) - and a 550-room hotel would be well supported. It's a good start!

The biggest stumbling block - unfortunately - is demand. That demand just isn't here - not yet anyway. Interestingly, there DOES seem to be considerable demand across the river in Manchester, and uptown in Scott's Addition. Manchester's snoozing at the moment - recovering for the big boom of the last few years - and gearing up for the next wave that I think will be ushered in by Avery Hall. Scott's is just off the chain at the moment. I don't think Scott's has EVER been this hot in terms of multiple projects going up simultaneously - even during the stretch in which buildings such as the Otis and the Bakery Loft's older sibling, the Icon, were constructed.

My point, my dear friend, is that. I do agree "boom towns" honestly don't resemble or feel like the kind of urban cities you or I or most folks on here are used to. And I'm STILL laughing at the visual I'm getting of the "high-rise nestled in the pines." And indeed, RVA was absolutely built like a northeastern city, not a southern boom town. We definitely have the bones to support a big uptick in the downtown residential population, as well as a rejuvenation of the downtown workforce (even though the pandemic trainwrecked things in SO many cities).

Don't misunderstand: I am blown away by INCREDIBLE change and growth RVA has been enjoying and continues to enjoy. I've been on this planet for more than six decades now and I can't even begin to fathom the scenario of multiple years, all strung together, in which multiple upon multiple (upon multiple!!) developments, both large and small, were all being built, more or less, simultaneously (with staggered overlap), with even more developments entering the pipeline before the ones under construction had fully exited the other end of the pipeline. It's just - incredible - and SO exciting! To say I continue to be blown away when pondering all that's been going on, pretty much non-stop and unabated now for, what - at LEAST seven years now? - is an understatement of epic proportions.

My heart is gladdened to no end by the incredible synergy we have with SO many developments. 

But I want more. I want more people moving to RVA, and doing so in droves. I want the market size to grow. I want the airport to grow. As Queen once sang, "I want it ALLLLL and (at age 61) I want it NOWWWW!!" (Cue me some Freddie Mercury!!!)

Again, I get where you're coming from, and we're in agreement. Man... I'm STILL laughing about the visual I now have about the "high-rise in the pines".   (With your permission, I'm going to have to share that with my brother when he gets back from Los Angeles).

[vaceltic]

Wrt to Charlotte, I just don’t find the place or its downtown that appealing. It’s a bunch of bankers walking between 1980s and 1990s office buildings in a very tall office park. Whoop-di-do.
 

Also, have you been through the CLT airport? It has one of the worst layouts ever to transit between terminals. It’s completely overcrowded for its size and there is carpet on the floor. CARPET! Have you ever frantically dragged a roller bag across CARPET in an airport rushing to your connecting flight?!

is Charlotte bigger? Yes. Is it better? Meh. Every time I’ve been there to visit or pass through, it doesn’t leave me with a great impression. It can be dressed up with gleaming, tall office buildings and new stadiums, but it’s still not starting from much. I’m sure that’s perfectly fine for a lot of folks, but I am not envious of Charlotte having more population and economic activity when the place in general is just MEH.

[123fakestreet]

1 hour ago, vaceltic said:

Wrt to Charlotte, I just don’t find the place or its downtown that appealing. It’s a bunch of bankers walking between 1980s and 1990s office buildings in a very tall office park. Whoop-di-do.
 

Also, have you been through the CLT airport? It has one of the worst layouts ever to transit between terminals. It’s completely overcrowded for its size and there is carpet on the floor. CARPET! Have you ever frantically dragged a roller bag across CARPET in an airport rushing to your connecting flight?!

is Charlotte bigger? Yes. Is it better? Meh. Every time I’ve been there to visit or pass through, it doesn’t leave me with a great impression. It can be dressed up with gleaming, tall office buildings and new stadiums, but it’s still not starting from much. I’m sure that’s perfectly fine for a lot of folks, but I am not envious of Charlotte having more population and economic activity when the place in general is just MEH.

Charlotte is terrible. All plastic and new, very generic. And IMO the actual downtown city isn't really even much bigger than Richmond.  They have 4 very tall towers and an NFL stadium. Take those away and it's the same size as Richmond with far far less character.  The reason the population is so big is the suburban sprawl, which again is all strip malls an cul-de-sacs. No thanks.

And yeah the airport is the worst I've ever been to. I actively avoid any flight that connects thru CLT.

Edited April 18 by 123fakestreet

[Flood Zone]

12 hours ago, vaceltic said:

I guess I just don’t care what Charlotte, Austin, Nashville, Raleigh, etc. ARE doing.

My default is just to say good for them, but not sure what it has to do with us.

All those places are fine, from what I've seen. Richmond is a super place. It's got its share of failures and missed chances, but the bones and people are great. Is it going to get as big as those other places? Well, no. Is that a problem? Not to me. If I want to experience "big," I'll go to the DMV.

[I miss RVA]

@vaceltic & @123fakestreet -- I 100% hear where you're coming from - and I'm in agreement pretty much on all of it. You're not wrong by any stretch.

HOWEVER (and I'm not trying to be a contrarian, and I offer this respectfully), but both of you are missing the point. I'm looking at this from an urban planning perspective and through the purely objective lens of market size and how it plays a part in development opportunities relative to the natural economic competition between markets. It's not about aesthetics or how Charlotte looks or feels or about character that Richmond has that other cities don't, all of which are subjective. It's about market power - the ability to attract large employers who can bring new jobs not by the hundreds but by the thousands and even tens of thousands. It's about the ability to attract large developers with deep pockets who are ready, willing and able to invest tremendous sums of money in huge development projects - and how the market helps make them succeed. It's about the demand for those projects, driven in large part by market size. It's about the factors -- again from an urban planning perspective -- that make downtowns thrive. It's showing what other cities ARE doing that Richmond is NOT doing but COULD be doing and SHOULD be doing.

Again - I point to these metrics:

• 35,000-plus downtown residential population
• 120,000-plus downtown weekday workforce
• 6,600 hotel rooms to accommodate tourists and business travelers

I use them as an example because these are metrics that, if they were in place here, would be completely transformative to downtown Richmond, and to the city as a whole. We lament how downtown has no retail core, how it has a vast sea of surface parking lots, how it often looks like a ghost town. Almost every photo I see of downtown RVA is almost completely devoid of human activity. Very few - if any - vehicles on the street. Very few - if any - people on the sidewalks. Either these pictures are all being taken at 7 o'clock on a Sunday morning or there's a legitimate lack of vitality downtown. What if, instead of fewer than 9,000 residents, downtown had 35,000 people LIVING within the boundaries of the what used to be described as the "Central Business District"? (And this INCLUDED Jackson and Monroe Wards and the entirety of the riverfront.) What if downtown had 120,000 people coming there to work five days per week? What if downtown had more than 6,000 hotel rooms available to attract even more business to the convention center and to the city? Imagine the economic benefit to not just downtown, but to the city -- and to the metro region -- as a whole!

Is this not what RVA should be striving for? According to my urban planning professors at VCU, it absolutely is. It's not just me saying. THEY were preaching this sermon 40 year ago.

Again, I hear where you both are coming from - and you're not wrong at all. But we're talking apples and oranges. We can't lament about the current state of downtown (block after block after block of surface parking lots, more vacant lots being created right in the heart of the Financial District, non-existent retail core, etc.) without at least examining the very things that could totally transform downtown. As I said before, the potential is all there. We have the bones to make this happen. What we lack - the "it' factor that our competitors have figured out - is the thing we need the most, as @upzoningisgood has clearly stated: the "hook" to create the DEMAND for all of this.

@Brent114 pointed to a VERY important demographic metric: that RVA has become a haven for introverted singletons who work from home, vs folks looking for downtown apartments who work in nearby large office buildings for big corporations. So how do we then turn things around and so that we ALSO attract those workerbees who DO want to live downtown? How do we attract big employers to come here and open an HQ2 or an ops center -- or to flat out relocate their headquarters to Richmond -- and to put it downtown?

In short, how do we get more CoStars to come here and do what CoStar is doing for the city?

Two final points: market size matters. You can "meh" and pooh pooh size differential all you want. But a city of 900K in a metro of 2.8 M will have a FAR easier time attracting THOSE VERY FACTORS (businesses, developers, etc.) that can be huge difference makers than can a city of 230K in a metro of 1.4 M. That's not opinion - that's simply a basic fact of market economics. Again - I point to the industry article I read a year or so ago that clearly and specifically stated that during economic crunches, developers pull back from smaller markets and put all their eggs into projects in bigger markets. So mid-size cities lose out to the bigger cities.

And as for CLT: the logistics of that airport are bad. Then again, the same can be said about ATL and ORD. Every try to change planes in Chicago? Ugh...  But here's the thing about CLT: they are getting an annual passenger load of more than 50 million, whereas RIC is HOPING to reach 5 million this year (which would be a GREAT accomplishment - and I'm praying like crazy we get there). Sure, it can be argued that RIC is "better" because it's not overcrowded or sprawling or whatever. But it's the IMPACT of the airport on the market economy that makes the difference. A bigger airport with more direct flights to more destinations, particularly with a hub for one or more carriers, and with direct international flights to all parts of the world is an exceptionally important and impactful asset for any metro market. It is part of what attracts businesses to relocate to a given market. From a business' "should we relocate to city A or city B" perspective, an airport with an annual passenger volume north of 50 million and 1,400 flights per day is going to be viewed as a FAR greater asset than an airport with an annual passenger volume of 5 million and fewer than 100 flights per day. To put it perspective, RIC is getting roughly 13,000 passengers per day, whereas CLT's daily passenger volume is more than 118,000. Businesses DO look at these metrics when making determinations of where to locate, where to hold large-scale events, etc.

Now, Imagine if RIC could even just DOUBLE it's passenger volume by, say, 2030, what that might do for us! If RIC was serving 10 million passengers per year with direct international flights, more direct domestic flights (and not just being funneled through hubs), and enough flights from any given carrier that it could serve as a de-facto "mini-hub" or even be selected as a focus city airport. Man - imagine the difference that could make!

My point is: RVA CAN DO ALL OF THIS!!! We absolutely can!! We just need to figure out how to get there. And what's more - because of the things both of you (and others) point to: the urban fabric, the character, the "bones" if you will of the city (built more like the cities of the Northeast) - we'll do it even BETTER than the southern boomtowns because we have the capacity to blend the best of BOTH worlds: bigger market size, bigger population, bigger, more robust downtown, with the awesome urban-ness that RVA exemplifies so wonderfully. The combination would be magical!

That's my point, guys. This is where I've dreamed my whole life RVA would be. We're not there now - not by a long shot. We probably won't get there in my lifetime. But I DO think we WILL get there! And we're doing some amazing things right now. It's an exciting start. I only wish I was 35 years younger so I'd have longer to watch it all unfold, because as things are going now and have been going for the past seven years or so, I honestly believe the best is yet to come.

Indeed - "Richmond Rising" is becoming a reality.

[eandslee]

43 minutes ago, I miss RVA said:

@vaceltic & @123fakestreet -- I 100% hear where you're coming from - and I'm in agreement pretty much on all of it. You're not wrong by any stretch.

HOWEVER (and I'm not trying to be a contrarian, and I offer this respectfully), but both of you are missing the point. I'm looking at this from an urban planning perspective and through the purely objective lens of market size and how it plays a part in development opportunities relative to the natural economic competition between markets. It's not about aesthetics or how Charlotte looks or feels or about character that Richmond has that other cities don't, all of which are subjective. It's about market power - the ability to attract large employers who can bring new jobs not by the hundreds but by the thousands and even tens of thousands. It's about the ability to attract large developers with deep pockets who are ready, willing and able to invest tremendous sums of money in huge development projects - and how the market helps make them succeed. It's about the demand for those projects, driven in large part by market size. It's about the factors -- again from an urban planning perspective -- that make downtowns thrive. It's showing what other cities ARE doing that Richmond is NOT doing but COULD be doing and SHOULD be doing.

Again - I point to these metrics:

• 35,000-plus downtown residential population
• 120,000-plus downtown weekday workforce
• 6,600 hotel rooms to accommodate tourists and business travelers

I use them as an example because these are metrics that, if they were in place here, would be completely transformative to downtown Richmond, and to the city as a whole. We lament how downtown has no retail core, how it has a vast sea of surface parking lots, how it often looks like a ghost town. Almost every photo I see of downtown RVA is almost completely devoid of human activity. Very few - if any - vehicles on the street. Very few - if any - people on the sidewalks. Either these pictures are all being taken at 7 o'clock on a Sunday morning or there's a legitimate lack of vitality downtown. What if, instead of fewer than 9,000 residents, downtown had 35,000 people LIVING within the boundaries of the what used to be described as the "Central Business District"? (And this INCLUDED Jackson and Monroe Wards and the entirety of the riverfront.) What if downtown had 120,000 people coming there to work five days per week? What if downtown had more than 6,000 hotel rooms available to attract even more business to the convention center and to the city? Imagine the economic benefit to not just downtown, but to the city -- and to the metro region -- as a whole!

Is this not what RVA should be striving for? According to my urban planning professors at VCU, it absolutely is. It's not just me saying. THEY were preaching this sermon 40 year ago.

Again, I hear where you both are coming from - and you're not wrong at all. But we're talking apples and oranges. We can't lament about the current state of downtown (block after block after block of surface parking lots, more vacant lots being created right in the heart of the Financial District, non-existent retail core, etc.) without at least examining the very things that could totally transform downtown. As I said before, the potential is all there. We have the bones to make this happen. What we lack - the "it' factor that our competitors have figured out - is the thing we need the most, as @upzoningisgood has clearly stated: the "hook" to create the DEMAND for all of this.

@Brent114 pointed to a VERY important demographic metric: that RVA has become a haven for introverted singletons who work from home, vs folks looking for downtown apartments who work in nearby large office buildings for big corporations. So how do we then turn things around and so that we ALSO attract those workerbees who DO want to live downtown? How do we attract big employers to come here and open an HQ2 or an ops center -- or to flat out relocate their headquarters to Richmond -- and to put it downtown?

In short, how do we get more CoStars to come here and do what CoStar is doing for the city?

Two final points: market size matters. You can "meh" and pooh pooh size differential all you want. But a city of 900K in a metro of 2.8 M will have a FAR easier time attracting THOSE VERY FACTORS (businesses, developers, etc.) that can be huge difference makers than can a city of 230K in a metro of 1.4 M. That's not opinion - that's simply a basic fact of market economics. Again - I point to the industry article I read a year or so ago that clearly and specifically stated that during economic crunches, developers pull back from smaller markets and put all their eggs into projects in bigger markets. So mid-size cities lose out to the bigger cities.

And as for CLT: the logistics of that airport are bad. Then again, the same can be said about ATL and ORD. Every try to change planes in Chicago? Ugh...  But here's the thing about CLT: they are getting an annual passenger load of more than 50 million, whereas RIC is HOPING to reach 5 million this year (which would be a GREAT accomplishment - and I'm praying like crazy we get there). Sure, it can be argued that RIC is "better" because it's not overcrowded or sprawling or whatever. But it's the IMPACT of the airport on the market economy that makes the difference. A bigger airport with more direct flights to more destinations, particularly with a hub for one or more carriers, and with direct international flights to all parts of the world is an exceptionally important and impactful asset for any metro market. It is part of what attracts businesses to relocate to a given market. From a business' "should we relocate to city A or city B" perspective, an airport with an annual passenger volume north of 50 million and 1,400 flights per day is going to be viewed as a FAR greater asset than an airport with an annual passenger volume of 5 million and fewer than 100 flights per day. To put it perspective, RIC is getting roughly 13,000 passengers per day, whereas CLT's daily passenger volume is more than 118,000. Businesses DO look at these metrics when making determinations of where to locate, where to hold large-scale events, etc.

Now, Imagine if RIC could even just DOUBLE it's passenger volume by, say, 2030, what that might do for us! If RIC was serving 10 million passengers per year with direct international flights, more direct domestic flights (and not just being funneled through hubs), and enough flights from any given carrier that it could serve as a de-facto "mini-hub" or even be selected as a focus city airport. Man - imagine the difference that could make!

My point is: RVA CAN DO ALL OF THIS!!! We absolutely can!! We just need to figure out how to get there. And what's more - because of the things both of you (and others) point to: the urban fabric, the character, the "bones" if you will of the city (built more like the cities of the Northeast) - we'll do it even BETTER than the southern boomtowns because we have the capacity to blend the best of BOTH worlds: bigger market size, bigger population, bigger, more robust downtown, with the awesome urban-ness that RVA exemplifies so wonderfully. The combination would be magical!

That's my point, guys. This is where I've dreamed my whole life RVA would be. We're not there now - not by a long shot. We probably won't get there in my lifetime. But I DO think we WILL get there! And we're doing some amazing things right now. It's an exciting start. I only wish I was 35 years younger so I'd have longer to watch it all unfold, because as things are going now and have been going for the past seven years or so, I honestly believe the best is yet to come.

Indeed - "Richmond Rising" is becoming a reality.

Every word above taken directly from my heart and mind.  In today’s slang - @I miss RVA is spittin’ facts!

[vaceltic]

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.

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. 

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/

 

 

[RiverYuppy]

I actually considered moving to Charlotte. My partner's parents were living there. We even rented a place there for just under a year to get a feel for it.

I hated it. 

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.

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. 

The Downtown in CLT didn't have great shopping either. The shopping was all in South Park which is essentially a pricier Short Pump.

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.

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

@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. 

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.

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.

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

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

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.