St. Paul's Quadrant (Phase 2-Under Construction)

[urbanlife]

this should actually take a long time to happen and grow, like a 20 year plan or something like that. If it happens too fast, you will be disappointed with the results.

[vdogg]

Well, maybe i'm mistaken, but I could've sworn there was an article in 06 that gave a timeline for completion. I may have to go hunt for it. I agree urbanlife, but i'd still like to see some sort of rough draft indicating the exact mix of uses and the densities that they are leaning towards. The current documents out are far too general (and leave a lot to be desired).

[Case]

Something just occurred to me. Why are we still scheduling and holding workshops? Wasn't this plan supposed to be complete a long time ago? I think they need to speed up the process a tad. Nothing wrong with taking time to get it right, but with all of these highly paid consultants you would think they could've come up with a solution by now.

Unfortunately, Norfolk has a long history of drafting development plans (some with citizen participation) ,shelfing them, then a few years later calling for citizen help to draft a new community development plan. Several community activist have described this scenario in length to me. Some even went as far a digging up letters and plans from two decades ago and presenting them to dumbfounded city officials.

Hopefully this is a thing of the past. There is quite a bit more visibility today.

[Sky06]

I'm all for getting on with this, making it dense development, etc. etc.

But I think it is absolutely essential the city get this right. This is a critical component of downtown Norfolk's future.

[brikkman]

What I'm not understanding is the need to include individuals in the redevelopment of an area that is practically free housing. As long as housing is available (because as a country,state and city we feel we need to support the poor and unwilling) they should have little to do with the progress part of this redevelopment (relocate them). Input is good but I don't classify this as eminent domain, that will slow the progress..

[Chesapeake Pirate]

What I'm not understanding is the need to include individuals in the redevelopment of an area that is practically free housing. As long as housing is available (because as a country,state and city we feel we need to support the poor and unwilling) they should have little to do with the progress part of this redevelopment (relocate them). Input is good but I don't classify this as eminent domain, that will slow the progress..

I think that in today's world your suggestion to just move these folks out and get on with what the city thinks is right would be both political suicide and misguided. Like it or not, this is home to many people who have apparently lived there for quite some time. It is also a unique area in that it contains several beautiful old historic churches. I don't know that the city has promised everyone they can still live there when the plan is implemented, but it only makes sense to realize there will be a residential component to the plan and it would seem to make a lot of sense for it to include some affordable housing. I remember a high rise tower for the elderly being discussed as one option among many when I attended one of the early planning sessions. This is a very exciting opportunity for the residents and for downtown and I think the opinions and desires of those the city has living there now should be considered. Obviously government failed all of us coming up with these warehouse type low income housing projects. A new and better way will benefit everyone.

[levarforever]

Here's an interesting article from the Virginian-Pilot. I hope this is a sign of good things to come.

Norfolk eyes rebuilding plan for St. Pauls quadrant

[spiker3]

at the idea of turning the Downtown Plaza into a Park N Ride lot. Worst idea for prime development space. And it's the front-runner. Someone should be shot.

While i'm not ignorant to the needs of the folks in public housing, and realize the political ramifications, i'm for developing, not kow-towing to the needs of the 1400 people who happen to live in the area. Here's hoping that they can be easily displaced or relocated and the open land utilized for an extension of downtown (which sorely needs the space)

[rusthebuss]

I'm scarred that we will see more Broad Creek style development in the St.Pauls Quadrant. I hate the visions that the current council has. I would rather them sit on the land and develop it as part of DT, not some crappy development.

[vtfan18]

I'm scarred that we will see more Broad Creek style development in the St.Pauls Quadrant. I hate the visions that the current council has. I would rather them sit on the land and develop it as part of DT, not some crappy development.

I certainly agree. I'm not sure the city has the correct vision for this area. Redevelopment of this area is critical and could make or break Norfolk in terms of future development.

[levarforever]

I would like to think that there is a balance that can be achieved by having a mixed-income residential development in the Quadrant out of respect to the residents in the public housing units while continuing the expansion of downtown, however, I see that having any low income housing in that area will stifle it's growth. Why stop the boom now when it has so much momentum? Let's keep the property values rising, I say. If they're going to provide low-income housing for the residents in the Quadrant, after uprooting them, they should provide it further away from downtown. I believe in mixed-income communities, but I don't think it's a helpful idea in that area. In anycase, I hope the council makes the right decision and fast, because I know it must be awkward having a view of Tidewater Gardens everyday, from a condo in the Rotunda. Besides, Tidewater Gardens is still a haven for crime. In the long run it's not going to help downtown's image. Progress shouldn't be rushed, but getting rid of the public housing there is waaaaay over due.

[rusthebuss]

They have the chance to double DT here. If we want to help our citizens, the city needs to look at growing its CBD. This will give us more tax revenue for schools and such.

[Henry_Ryto]

at the idea of turning the Downtown Plaza into a Park N Ride lot. Worst idea for prime development space. And it's the front-runner. Someone should be shot.

While i'm not ignorant to the needs of the folks in public housing, and realize the political ramifications, i'm for developing, not kow-towing to the needs of the 1400 people who happen to live in the area. Here's hoping that they can be easily displaced or relocated and the open land utilized for an extension of downtown (which sorely needs the space)

NEWS FLASH: given the scarcity of low-income housing, moving 1,400 people will be a nightmare.

This goes against the grain of Norfolk policy, but have they considered a low-income (subsidized) apartment tower building? It's not mixed-income like Broad Creek, but:

1. It would fit in the urban landscape.

2. It allows them to stay in the same neighborhood.

3. It would provide a ready pool of blue collar labor for downtown businesses.

4. It keeps them at their YMCA and churches.

Nah...makes too much sense.

[rusthebuss]

NEWS FLASH: given the scarcity of low-income housing, moving 1,400 people will be a nightmare.

This goes against the grain of Norfolk policy, but have they considered a low-income (subsidized) apartment tower building? It's not mixed-income like Broad Creek, but:

1. It would fit in the urban landscape.

2. It allows them to stay in the same neighborhood.

3. It would provide a ready pool of blue collar labor for downtown businesses.

4. It keeps them at their YMCA and churches.

Nah...makes too much sense.

I agree but its expensive for people that won't be paying for it. I would think that they would have to get some kind of federal and state funds in helping to build it. High rise projects wouldn't be good for DT though.

[vaceltic]

Henry, wouldn't creating a low-income tower be like creating all of the high-rise projects you see in Philly and New York built in the 60s? I think the trend is to get away from that since creating a vertical prison fuels so many social problems.

[rusthebuss]

Henry, wouldn't creating a low-income tower be like creating all of the high-rise projects you see in Philly and New York built in the 60s? I think the trend is to get away from that since creating a vertical prison fuels so many social problems.

I don't believe that high rises for poor people cause social problems, people cause social problems, the same thing goes on in SFU subdivisions that are filled with poor people.

[scm]

I'm scarred that we will see more Broad Creek style development in the St.Pauls Quadrant. I hate the visions that the current council has. I would rather them sit on the land and develop it as part of DT, not some crappy development.

Rus, you and I couldn't agree more. If they do suburban low density ala Broad Creek, I will puke.

And where did this idea for a park and ride come from? It is wrong on so many levels. First, what is the need? Where will the 675 cars come from? Where will they be going on the light rail? Newtown Road? Maybe in the future, Town Center or the Oceanfront? Second, do they really think 675 single occupancy vehicles will park in a lot that is two blocks from the closest LR station? Why not just establish a P&R at Harbor Park, if that is what they are after? Third, and tied into both, is why won't these folks just board a bus at their origination and connect to LR at Harbor Park?

The better use for that site is as a signature city park -- sort of Norfolk's smaller version of Central Park or Lincoln Park in Chicago. We, as a nation, got away from public parks after WWII when we started towards SFRs. Effectively, we each had our own mini-park in our backyards. If we are going to make density work, then we need to have outlets for all of the activities that occur in suburban backyards. Downtown is the natural place for density -- LR makes density make sense, and density makes LR make sense.

Just think how beautiful that would be -- St. Pauls to Fenchurch, and south of Wood (except for the exisiting building at the corner) -- all landscaped. Trucks over three axles barred on St. Paul's, except for local deliveries -- make it a real boulevard. East side of Fenchurch, four to six story condos, like those on the west side of St. Paul. The rest of residental in the quadrant could be four plexes, like Andr

[Padman]

There's a prettysolid history of urban sociology on the issue of highrises not always being a good fit for the poor. There have been too many social problems and destructive activities in high rise projects to even begin to chronicle. There was a belief in the 40s and 50s that "good buildings make good people" and that idea has just not been proven correct. High rises can be fine for the elderly, yuppies, travelers and for workers, but they don't work for everyone.

Wherever planning is discussed by area residents, they almost always want low density residential development, parks, community centers and other niceties. They don't want density, high-rises and employment centers. But you have to involve everyone in the planning process if you want to accomplish anything at all nowadays. I hope that ultimately they can extend at least some of the CBD into St. Paul's Quadrant, and replace the project housing with something nicer, even if some of it has to be built away from the downtown area. It would be foolish to fill that location with low cost housing, even nice, low cost housing. I think that City Hall may be going to far in their tendency to turn downtown into a residential neighborhood.

[rusthebuss]

I think it needs to be a mix of residential and business high density. Man any other city would die to have this land to develop. Norfolk has a chance to do something with this land but i feel we will all be disappointed with the outcome. City council has absolutely no clue.

[Sky06]

at the idea of turning the Downtown Plaza into a Park N Ride lot. Worst idea for prime development space. And it's the front-runner. Someone should be shot.

While i'm not ignorant to the needs of the folks in public housing, and realize the political ramifications, i'm for developing, not kow-towing to the needs of the 1400 people who happen to live in the area. Here's hoping that they can be easily displaced or relocated and the open land utilized for an extension of downtown (which sorely needs the space)

I'm scarred that we will see more Broad Creek style development in the St.Pauls Quadrant. I hate the visions that the current council has. I would rather them sit on the land and develop it as part of DT, not some crappy development.

Have to agree. I just don't think a mix will work. Middle class residents will not spend lots of money to live next to federal housing, whether it's rebuilt or not. It just won't work. I say let's use the property to extend DT, add parks, shops, etc. That will be far more acceptable to critics than building high-income housing to replace the existing. And far smarter than sprucing up section 8 housing. As I've said, Norfolk needs to be bold and not try to please everyone. They'll only end up pleasing no one.

Edited October 5, 2007 by Sky06

[Sky06]

I certainly agree. I'm not sure the city has the correct vision for this area. Redevelopment of this area is critical and could make or break Norfolk in terms of future development.

Also agree.

[cpeakesqr]

Haven't cities like NYC made a lot of progress in tower projects? I think I read that somewhere... In any scenario, if the people are not going to be moved then the public housing will have to be consolidated, and towers make sense. And a park really isn't going to happen, at least not on the scale scm envisions.

[rusthebuss]

Haven't cities like NYC made a lot of progress in tower projects? I think I read that somewhere... In any scenario, if the people are not going to be moved then the public housing will have to be consolidated, and towers make sense. And a park really isn't going to happen, at least not on the scale scm envisions.

We need a real DT before we go and consider a city park of that caliber.

[cpeakesqr]

Is anyone going to that meeting? Taking pictures??? I'd like to see what that firm has been over-paid to come up with... Anyone? Bueller?

[mikeas]

Is anyone going to that meeting? Taking pictures??? I'd like to see what that firm has been over-paid to come up with... Anyone? Bueller?

All I can say is that I will be really disappointed if the area consists of a parking lot or single family homes. I thought I had read something about the city needing to eliminate some parking to qualify for federal funding for the light rail. I don't really think the city has an obligation whatsover to provide low income housing that close to downtown. I'd love to live downtown but I can't afford it...

The city needs to extend a block structure over there and take bids from developers. Right around McArthur should be an extension of the business district consisting of office towers with ground level big box retailers. Further out towards Tidewater and Brambleton would be good for a mix of economical rental property and townhomes.