Downtown Norfolk Progress

[urbanlife]

If a city doesn't have a strong art community, then the city will never amount to much if it wishes to actually grow as a cultural center of a metro. People don't go to Norfolk for that art because the downtown isn't filled with galleries to attract people into the city for cultural needs. Every successful city I have been in has a healthy art community. Omaha was recently mentioned about an arena they have built, well you guys might not realize but Omaha actually has a pretty big art community and has an artist residence center that is much like the d'Arts Center in the Sheldon, but is actually a well known facility.

Tacoma, Wa is another example of this, the city was once known for its high crime, prostitution, and drug abuse, especially downtown. Now the city has a thriving art community, galleries filling store fronts, a satellite college downtown, and a collection of museums that have all helped to reestablish the city as a cultural center in spite of being down the road from Seattle.

When you guys complain about the lack of activity downtown and empty storefronts it confuses me to hear comments like this that the art community should be shuffled aside rather than expressed and made into an important entity for the city.

Go visit a city on one of their first of the month art days where all the galleries have all their new showings and tell me you don't want that same energy in Norfolk.

Edited December 24, 2010 by urbanlife

[Mos]

I agree with him. The market should dictate what occupies storefronts. The selden arcade is prime real estate supported by the city. I believe that if a time comes when retail that can actually benefit the economy wants to move into the arcade, then an art gallery shouldn't stand in their way.

Why is it either/ or? Perhaps both the city and the artists could benefit from some variety in the arcade. Is there actually any interest from potential businesses?

[VBIllini13]

First off, it's the SELDEN Arcade. If you're going to be advocating for something, might as well get the name right. Second, people except those obsessed with the so-called creative class are not concerned with paintings. With the exception of.art museums it is not something people will go out of their way to see. Arts like music and theater give reasons for people to come to downtown. People would rather see art on the street rather than in city-supported projects like the d'Art Center. What residents of downtown/Freemason might like is for the Selden Arcade to be put to its original use and be filled with retail and barber shops, given an appropriate market and demand. The only reason Granby's storefronts were filled with art this summer and that is because there were no retail or other businesses to fill it. A healthy art community is good for a city, but it should not be surviving at the will of the government, it should be because people want the art or at least express interest in seeing paintings downtown. I would personally be fine if Selden were filled with retail and art graced the atrium. That would serve as a pleasant amenity to shoppers and window shoppers in the arcade

[Mos]

The Selden Arcade is dead, especially during the day. The heart of downtown and in prime real estate is not the spot for artists to be able to paint and show off their work. The city put then there because at the time, and still now for a time, the arcade had few if any tenants and they thought it would liven up the place. Clustering art in an inside venue with nothing to attract them inside is just one reason not many people come to norfolk for it's art. I like when artists come to me and are on the street rather than me having to go to them. Why? Because I won't go to them. Art is important to a city but in the form of theater and music rather than amateur painting.

Actually there was a bit of a deal involved with putting the artists into the arcade. The city wanted the site of the D'art center for redevelopment at the same time that the owners of the arcade were threatening to tear the joint down and build a parking deck. The city bought the arcade and brokered a deal to move the artists in. I'm not saying the arrangement can't or shouldn't be tweaked; but given the economy, a bird in the hand is probably worth even more than two in the bush. Again, I would ask who is beating down the door to lease space in the arcade? Waterside should demonstrate that simply providing vacant space is not a viable business plan.

[VBIllini13]

Exactly my point. Because the economy is so bad, better the storefronts are filled with something rather than being left vacant. However if there comes a time when retailers want to occupy the space again, I say artists need to find a new place to call home unless they are willing to put up unsubsidized rent.

[urbanlife]

First off, it's the SELDEN Arcade. If you're going to be advocating for something, might as well get the name right. Second, people except those obsessed with the so-called creative class are not concerned with paintings. With the exception of.art museums it is not something people will go out of their way to see. Arts like music and theater give reasons for people to come to downtown. People would rather see art on the street rather than in city-supported projects like the d'Art Center. What residents of downtown/Freemason might like is for the Selden Arcade to be put to its original use and be filled with retail and barber shops, given an appropriate market and demand. The only reason Granby's storefronts were filled with art this summer and that is because there were no retail or other businesses to fill it. A healthy art community is good for a city, but it should not be surviving at the will of the government, it should be because people want the art or at least express interest in seeing paintings downtown. I would personally be fine if Selden were filled with retail and art graced the atrium. That would serve as a pleasant amenity to shoppers and window shoppers in the arcade

I appologize for the misspelling, it has been 10 years since I was last in Norfolk and I was typing that post on my phone, so errors do happen. But I am gonna have to guess that based on your entire post, you have never been to a First Thursday art event in a city. If you had, you would be clamoring for the same thing to be going on in Norfolk.

Portland Gallery Map

This gives you an idea of how many galleries are in downtown Portland, which is all full of paintings that you say people are not concerned with. Almost all of these galleries have popped up in the last 10-15 years because there is an actual market for all forms of art and a lot of money to be made in it. Things like the art center in the Selden Arcade are important to have as a foundation, but it is important to build off of that to create a healthy art community that actually attracts people into the city beyond workday hours.

Here in Portland, Tacoma, Spokane, Austin, each of these cities have a First Day each month for its art galleries...and a few of these cities have more than just a First Day, Portland has Last Thursday which has developed in one of the neighborhoods in the NE, during the summer months the event attracts so many people that the city just shuts off the street as people walking from art gallery to art gallery, shop to shop walk around mingling. All of these events are mixed with vendors on the sidewalks and gallery spaces.

It is common to use empty store front space as art gallery space, but a successful art community is able to pay the full rents of those same storefronts which make them just as important as any form of retail. Also if the city were to have a monthly even that did attract thousands of people into Norfolk on opening day each month, you would begin to see restaurants, bars, and other forms of retail opening up to cater to that.

I am just confused how anyone could be against attracting large groups of people into a downtown to spend money and mingle...isn't that the point of a downtown?

photo from demotix.com, not sure who the actual credit is though.

This is a typical shot of Last Thursday that happens every month in the NE Alberta neighborhood, which is a growing neighborhood that once use to be one of the more worse parts of town. Now the area is full of art galleries, restaurants, shops, bars, and just about anything else you can think of. Last Thursday is a mix of street vendors and stores, selling anything from art to crafts to other handcrafted items. This is something I could see implemented in any one of Norfolk's neighborhoods that are still looking for an identity beyond Ghent and Colley.

photo taken by Tanner Dobson

This is a photo of NW 13th in the Pearl District in downtown Portland. This is from First Thursday which happens each month where they shut down this street downtown and allow street vendors to set up showing their work, along with all the art galleries in the district that have their new shows opening. Every month the downtown is packed with people that are out looking at art, mingling, shopping, drinking, eating, and all of this brings in money to the city and creates a very active downtown. This is what I would love to see Norfolk doing. I will say one of the cities in Hampton Roads is going to jump in on this and start doing this to establish itself as the cultural center of the region. If Norfolk doesn't start this first, Virginia Beach will as its downtown grows.

Edited December 25, 2010 by urbanlife

[brikkman]

MOS, thanks for pointing that out and confirming my suspension regarding the building. Selden Arcade demonstrates why there is empty space on granby. I suspect it has little to do with the enconomy; actually, we have the same amount of retail if not less prior to 2006. Real estate is just too darn high to take a risk in DT (granby to be exact) and the occupants of Selden arcade always baffled me to why they were able to afford a lease. Now i know why it was able to house art tenants who rarely generate any foot traffic and no telling regarding sells. As VB said its prime real estate and as I said, one of the rare venues in DT in terms creative architecture.

Urban, I was not advocating dismissing the artist who occupy that venue, but rather move them to an area in DT and make it available to a different tax base.

[urbanlife]

MOS, thanks for pointing that out and confirming my suspension regarding the building. Selden Arcade demonstrates why there is empty space on granby. I suspect it has little to do with the enconomy; actually, we have the same amount of retail if not less prior to 2006. Real estate is just too darn high to take a risk in DT (granby to be exact) and the occupants of Selden arcade always baffled me to why they were able to afford a lease. Now i know why it was able to house art tenants who rarely generate any foot traffic and no telling regarding sells. As VB said its prime real estate and as I said, one of the rare venues in DT in terms creative architecture.

Urban, I was not advocating dismissing the artist who occupy that venue, but rather move them to an area in DT and make it available to a different tax base.

Where would you suggest downtown? It isn't like it is a big downtown with a lot of possibilities anymore. Besides I am not saying that they need to be moved to any other location...besides from what I remember the two arcades were fairly stagnant and empty long before the art center moved into the Selden. Besides, streets like Granby, Plume, Main, Boush, and Monticello should all be taking advantage of creating an art culture for the city and region. What I am trying to explain that I feel isn't being understood in here is something you just have to experience first hand to be blown away by. Those two photos are two streets in Portland that are full of people for each of those events. These are just things that go along with having a healthy city and a healthy downtown.

[brikkman]

Where would you suggest downtown? It isn't like it is a big downtown with a lot of possibilities anymore. Besides I am not saying that they need to be moved to any other location...besides from what I remember the two arcades were fairly stagnant and empty long before the art center moved into the Selden. Besides, streets like Granby, Plume, Main, Boush, and Monticello should all be taking advantage of creating an art culture for the city and region. What I am trying to explain that I feel isn't being understood in here is something you just have to experience first hand to be blown away by. Those two photos are two streets in Portland that are full of people for each of those events. These are just things that go along with having a healthy city and a healthy downtown.

How about ghent, how about North granby where everyone talks about that nothing is going on. There is an old zeds store that needs some love. Its huge, its on granby, a stones throw from bobs. I guess we agree, just not on the location. And your right, DT isn't that big, that's why I'm still wondering abotu all this GREEN space people keep advocating for.

[BFG]

I can't think off the top of my head, but are there any old warehouses that the city hasn't decided to tear down? I went into downtown Dallas tonight, and they've converted their warehouses into loft apartments, and there was one spot called the West End that was similar to Waterside at one point as a marketplace (not the architecture).

I just wish this city would realize that tearing down everything is not the answer. Why they're afraid to mix old and new, I don't know.

[urbanlife]

How about ghent, how about North granby where everyone talks about that nothing is going on. There is an old zeds store that needs some love. Its huge, its on granby, a stones throw from bobs. I guess we agree, just not on the location. And your right, DT isn't that big, that's why I'm still wondering abotu all this GREEN space people keep advocating for.

Actually in a map I made once in here, I pointed out that I actually consider that portion of the city to still be in downtown's limits and should be treated that way. The Zedds location would actually make for a great spot for the artist center that is in the Selden Arcade, plus the open area in front of the building could easily be converted into a plaza entrance for the building where outdoor sculpture work could be displayed. Personally I think the area between Brambleton and VB Blvd, and St Paul and Yarmouth should be treated as a downtown arts district, something like "Museum District" or "Chrysler District" with using the museum as an art district centerpiece, which would actually make a lot of sense. Plus in that area is still a good number of older buildings to renovate as well as a number of lots for new developments. The Bus Terminal building would also be another great spot for some form of anchor to the whole district. Plus if it is done correctly, there would be activity flowing between this district and down the rest of Granby, which would be a huge improvement for the city.

Actually regardless of the size of downtown, green space and open space is still an important factor to a healthy city. Beyond Waterside, Norfolk really doesn't have a central plaza or anything that feels like the center of the city, or anything like what we have here in Portland with Pioneer Square which has been nicknamed Portland's living room. I don't see the light rail stop being that great of a central plaza for the city because from what I have seen of the renderings, it looks like it will lack that sense of gathering beyond just being a light rail stop...but then again, that is just based from the renderings I have seen which haven't been that well detailed.

Another issue is what should the Selden be used for if not what it is currently being used for? Much like the Waterside Mall, this building suffers from some of the same problems, just in a different location. Which I have said plenty of times before, I understand the MacArthur Mall and the reasons behind it being constructed, but I wish the city would of been more creative at the time. It would of made more sense to renovate the two arcades into mall shops, turning the lot that the city wants to build the convention center building into a location for a department store anchor. Then make City Hall and Monticello, the location of the Dillard's, into a central city plaza that is surrounded by a three block mall that included an atrium style building for more shops and two other buildings for department stores. With two big parking garages located behind them. Then with whatever left over space, that would of been the perfect location for a convention center/hotel building...but it is a bit too late for any of that kind of thinking, instead the city has a giant elephant in the middle of its downtown it will forever have to work around.

Almost forgot one more thing, if you look up Norfolk in Google Maps, the images of the downtown have been updated and you can now see downtown in Simcity style with the new light rail tracks running through the city.

Edited December 27, 2010 by urbanlife

[brikkman]

Actually in a map I made once in here, I pointed out that I actually consider that portion of the city to still be in downtown's limits and should be treated that way. The Zedds location would actually make for a great spot for the artist center that is in the Selden Arcade, plus the open area in front of the building could easily be converted into a plaza entrance for the building where outdoor sculpture work could be displayed. Personally I think the area between Brambleton and VB Blvd, and St Paul and Yarmouth should be treated as a downtown arts district, something like "Museum District" or "Chrysler District" with using the museum as an art district centerpiece, which would actually make a lot of sense. Plus in that area is still a good number of older buildings to renovate as well as a number of lots for new developments. The Bus Terminal building would also be another great spot for some form of anchor to the whole district. Plus if it is done correctly, there would be activity flowing between this district and down the rest of Granby, which would be a huge improvement for the city.

Actually regardless of the size of downtown, green space and open space is still an important factor to a healthy city. Beyond Waterside, Norfolk really doesn't have a central plaza or anything that feels like the center of the city, or anything like what we have here in Portland with Pioneer Square which has been nicknamed Portland's living room. I don't see the light rail stop being that great of a central plaza for the city because from what I have seen of the renderings, it looks like it will lack that sense of gathering beyond just being a light rail stop...but then again, that is just based from the renderings I have seen which haven't been that well detailed.

Another issue is what should the Selden be used for if not what it is currently being used for? Much like the Waterside Mall, this building suffers from some of the same problems, just in a different location. Which I have said plenty of times before, I understand the MacArthur Mall and the reasons behind it being constructed, but I wish the city would of been more creative at the time. It would of made more sense to renovate the two arcades into mall shops, turning the lot that the city wants to build the convention center building into a location for a department store anchor. Then make City Hall and Monticello, the location of the Dillard's, into a central city plaza that is surrounded by a three block mall that included an atrium style building for more shops and two other buildings for department stores. With two big parking garages located behind them. Then with whatever left over space, that would of been the perfect location for a convention center/hotel building...but it is a bit too late for any of that kind of thinking, instead the city has a giant elephant in the middle of its downtown it will forever have to work around.

Almost forgot one more thing, if you look up Norfolk in Google Maps, the images of the downtown have been updated and you can now see downtown in Simcity style with the new light rail tracks running through the city.

I do understand the need for green space in an urbanized area,its just I believe our small DT is too small to keep putting in lots of green space in its current form. I think Townpoint part and the new light rail stop will suffice, at least until it grows in size. Its time for the city to take hold of the cities future, it just seems like no one is at the wheel.

[urbanlife]

I do understand the need for green space in an urbanized area,its just I believe our small DT is too small to keep putting in lots of green space in its current form. I think Townpoint part and the new light rail stop will suffice, at least until it grows in size. Its time for the city to take hold of the cities future, it just seems like no one is at the wheel.

Well the city needs to have someone with some actual vision in charge and willing to put together a true urban plan for the downtown that also includes important steps that need to happen in order to make it happen. The removal of Young Terrace, Calvert Square, and Tidewater Gardens are also another important factor which should happen over stages, allowing the city to redevelop new urban blocks throughout that area and do it in a manor to allow for replacement housing to be built within these three future districts in urban form as well as new more suburban housing styles spread throughout the city, with better guidelines for locations that are more of a stepping stone housing to help people improve their lives and housing for more permanent people to allow them a quality home to care for.

The downtown that I highlighted should be broken down into a series of districts, each serving a unique function, and each having a distinct look to them. Obviously the three housing projects would be ground up redevelopments, which are much more costly and take longer to do completely. Right now you guys are basically waiting for the city to finally make some real moves with the St Paul Quadrant, which will be the real sign of what the future growth for downtown can be like, I just hope Norfolk gets a better jump on the next building boom and can really push more new developments. The last building boom, it felt like Norfolk got a lot of new infill, but did nothing to expand its downtown as much as other cities did.

[varider]

urbanlife, i agree with you.

the projects need to go, they should be replaced by row homes (there are some good examples going up on church st) and 4-7 floor residential/ office buildings w/ retail on the street level.

you know.. something that I really think would make Norfolk a bajilllion times better..? AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN DOWNTOWN NORFOLK!! Build homes downtown for the average Joe and watch the population triple.. also, an urban high school in downtown would really help it out.

[usermel]

Im wondering myself if the city politicians have the same feelings. The issue may be just that, the politics of moving those folks from there homes. As funny as this may sound those projects are historical to in terms of when and why they were built and those who live there were do they go? I agree, moving the projects or low income housing will benefit Norfolk, Im with you gents/ladies and the question is for me. How does Norfolk do this without offending anyone and not causing a stir from groups who may say "there trying to rid of the poor cause they dont belong"! I feel Norfolk could make so much use of the land and it will expand growth potential for residential as well as commercial real estate and imagine the downtown size then. There's little land if any at all to build without knocking things down. The answer to me would be using the land the low income homes are on and relocation. They need money to do so so, that will cost to relocate and build the new housing. I agree, we need that land and the city may be thinking the same thing just trying to be cautious how they go about it! LGNM

Edited December 28, 2010 by usermel

[urbanlife]

Im wondering myself if the city politicians have the same feelings. The issue may be just that, the politics of moving those folks from there homes. As funny as this may sound those projects are historical to in terms of when and why they were built and those who live there were do they go? I agree, moving the projects or low income housing will benefit Norfolk, Im with you gents/ladies and the question is for me. How does Norfolk do this without offending anyone and not causing a stir from groups who may say "there trying to rid of the poor cause they dont belong"! I feel Norfolk could make so much use of the land and it will expand growth potential for residential as well as commercial real estate and imagine the downtown size then. There's little land if any at all to build without knocking things down. The answer to me would be using the land the low income homes are on and relocation. They need money to do so so, that will cost to relocate and build the new housing. I agree, we need that land and the city may be thinking the same thing just trying to be cautious how they go about it! LGNM

This is when it is important to have a plan in place, and to have local, state, and federal politicians on your side to help bring in government money to help renovate these three locations. Remember these projects were built with federal urban renewal funds, and urban renewal funds can correct the damages these projects have done...which there are a good number of cities that are currently tearing these projects down and replacing them with much more efficient living conditions that have had proven positive results.

In the case of Norfolk and the location of these three projects, it would be important for the city to design a urban street grid pattern through these neighborhoods that links all three together as well as links them with the rest of downtown. The current state of these projects is actually way under utilizing the land that they sit on; it would be important for the city to replaces the low income units with urban buildings mixed in with other "at market" buildings, as well as having developers provide a percentage of units in each building for lower income and affordable income levels. That way it is not only the Section 8 people that get affordable housing, it also includes though above Section 8 that can't afford high end units. Because not everyone wants to live in an urban building, it is important that a number of units be built throughout neighborhoods in the city that provide single family homes to Section 8 residents and other forms of affordable housing...though technically Norfolk's housing stock is really affordable, it just needs people willing to put energy into improving their own neighborhoods with the help of the city creating urban renewal boundaries to help neighborhoods renovate and improve their own neighborhoods. Also it is important for the city to have a better regulation system in place for allotting housing to people that are in need of government assistance to prevent these new buildings from being plagued with old problems. Which it is important to also address old problems before they become new problems.

[brikkman]

Im wondering myself if the city politicians have the same feelings. The issue may be just that, the politics of moving those folks from there homes. As funny as this may sound those projects are historical to in terms of when and why they were built and those who live there were do they go? I agree, moving the projects or low income housing will benefit Norfolk, Im with you gents/ladies and the question is for me. How does Norfolk do this without offending anyone and not causing a stir from groups who may say "there trying to rid of the poor cause they dont belong"! I feel Norfolk could make so much use of the land and it will expand growth potential for residential as well as commercial real estate and imagine the downtown size then. There's little land if any at all to build without knocking things down. The answer to me would be using the land the low income homes are on and relocation. They need money to do so so, that will cost to relocate and build the new housing. I agree, we need that land and the city may be thinking the same thing just trying to be cautious how they go about it! LGNM

Plan?

I always thought the simply answer to that was for norfolk to take a stand on issues in its city. First, no one can be offend by what is afforded to them in a free manner. Housing is not a human right, but as citizen of this country, most tend to care about others well being. Because we know how the world can be cruel and unregulate that hurts certain segments of society, we enact such programs to help these types . We do not necessary have to move them, but then again why not? This is how I see it, and this is a simply way the city can check itself. If people are worried about these types moving near them, the system is broken in some manner, the city should take steps to fix that. The problem is classic, using what will be the new st. pauls quadrant and broadcreek as an example: If/When they built the new housing, they advocated all the things that the the residents are doing now, can not and will not happen in the new housing instead of putting those same policies in place now. That's a gut check, that's taken action about your situation, that has good intentions. Norfolk isn't doing that. So simply moving them has more to do with their lack of intervention with these individuals, rather them placing them in a new area. For me, this does not have to necessarly be communicated to the rest of the citzens of Norfolk at this time, but directly to those who use city services for free. Follow the rules and all your extentions, or you are OUT. I personally would see DT expand to SPQ than north brambleton, its just more control to work with without having to deal with the self made boarder we call brambleton. I hate to create a bigger waterside issue in the sense of being detached from the rest of the core. Right now, the housing projects in that immediate area is bigger than DT with no plans to shrink that......that is an issue.

Edited December 28, 2010 by brikkman

[Norfolk4Life]

because federal money is used in the administration of the projects, the city cannot just tear them down and move the people out. The development that will be built as a replacement MUST offer subsidized units one for one in regards to what is torn down. Broad Creek was built that way. It looks WAY better than the projects that it replaced but the poor people are still there. Not a bad idea, really. I will try to find the actual study, but there was a study done awhile ago outside of Chicago (i think) after the city's housing authority was found guilty of housing discrimination. Public housing residents were given the choice to stay in the urban projects or move to subsidized housing in the outlying suburbs. The study found that the people that moved to a more middle-class type neighborhood in the suburbs were taking home more pay and had a higher chance of moving out of the subsidized houses. Additionally, the youth had a much higher graduation rate. Simply put: Take the poor people out of the desolate, depressing public housing projects where they are surrounded by perpetual poverty and put them somewhere where they can see that there IS something better out there and they WILL improve their own conditions and become productive members of society.

[urbanlife]

Plan?

I always thought the simply answer to that was for norfolk to take a stand on issues in its city. First, no one can be offend by what is afforded to them in a free manner. Housing is not a human right, but as citizen of this country, most tend to care about others well being. Because we know how the world can be cruel and unregulate that hurts certain segments of society, we enact such programs to help these types . We do not necessary have to move them, but then again why not? This is how I see it, and this is a simply way the city can check itself. If people are worried about these types moving near them, the system is broken in some manner, the city should take steps to fix that. The problem is classic, using what will be the new st. pauls quadrant and broadcreek as an example: If/When they built the new housing, they advocated all the things that the the residents are doing now, can not and will not happen in the new housing instead of putting those same policies in place now. That's a gut check, that's taken action about your situation, that has good intentions. Norfolk isn't doing that. So simply moving them has more to do with their lack of intervention with these individuals, rather them placing them in a new area. For me, this does not have to necessarly be communicated to the rest of the citzens of Norfolk at this time, but directly to those who use city services for free. Follow the rules and all your extentions, or you are OUT. I personally would see DT expand to SPQ than north brambleton, its just more control to work with without having to deal with the self made boarder we call brambleton. I hate to create a bigger waterside issue in the sense of being detached from the rest of the core. Right now, the housing projects in that immediate area is bigger than DT with no plans to shrink that......that is an issue.

Technically housing is a human right, it is called the need to dwell. Those who are homeless will still find a way to create a home for themselves, even if it is just a corner of pavement. The reason for having these programs that are there to help the poor and provide homes to people who would more than likely be homeless is to prevent our country from having those extreme poverty ghettos that plague other countries with. I personally would not want to have the same kind of poverty that plagues Brazil.

Also another thing to keep in mind, for every one person that is abusing the system, there is probably 100 people that are grateful for the system for giving them some form of stability in life, even if it is only the bare minimum. Brambleton isn't that big of a barrier to deal with, it is no interstate, and the difference between Brambleton and Waterside is Waterside only has a limited amount of land to work with, while north of Brambleton has the entire city of Norfolk, so creating that bridge is actually less complicated for Brambleton.

I will agree with that last statement, redeveloping the projects around downtown would double the size of downtown if the redevelopment was done so in an urban fashion with navigatable(I think I might of just made up a new word there...or just spelled it wrong) urban blocks.

because federal money is used in the administration of the projects, the city cannot just tear them down and move the people out. The development that will be built as a replacement MUST offer subsidized units one for one in regards to what is torn down. Broad Creek was built that way. It looks WAY better than the projects that it replaced but the poor people are still there. Not a bad idea, really. I will try to find the actual study, but there was a study done awhile ago outside of Chicago (i think) after the city's housing authority was found guilty of housing discrimination. Public housing residents were given the choice to stay in the urban projects or move to subsidized housing in the outlying suburbs. The study found that the people that moved to a more middle-class type neighborhood in the suburbs were taking home more pay and had a higher chance of moving out of the subsidized houses. Additionally, the youth had a much higher graduation rate. Simply put: Take the poor people out of the desolate, depressing public housing projects where they are surrounded by perpetual poverty and put them somewhere where they can see that there IS something better out there and they WILL improve their own conditions and become productive members of society.

Actually that is a technique that we have been using in Portland for the last 30 years, it is call decentralizing poverty. By decentralizing poverty and integrating it into the neighborhoods it has managed to change the issues with poverty in Portland by giving people better neighborhoods to live in and a better chance at succeeding because of their surroundings and better schools. When poverty is bunched in key locations, it is impossible for people to improve on their own lifestyle if they are surrounded by everything that is bringing them down and holding them back. I wouldn't be surprised if the city was able to do a one for one by replacing half of the needed units within their current location with a more urban neighborhood setting, then provide the other half of the units needed by spreading them out in single family homes and duplex buildings throughout the rest of the city.

But the most important thing to do is to have a well structured plan that shows all the moves that will happen and how it will effect everyone involved in it. Which from what I have seen so far, St Paul Quadrant has been doing a good job with this, though it is starting to get to the point where it would be nice to see some physical activity happening with St Paul Quadrant, rather than just talk and planning.

[brikkman]

because federal money is used in the administration of the projects, the city cannot just tear them down and move the people out. The development that will be built as a replacement MUST offer subsidized units one for one in regards to what is torn down. Broad Creek was built that way. It looks WAY better than the projects that it replaced but the poor people are still there. Not a bad idea, really. I will try to find the actual study, but there was a study done awhile ago outside of Chicago (i think) after the city's housing authority was found guilty of housing discrimination. Public housing residents were given the choice to stay in the urban projects or move to subsidized housing in the outlying suburbs. The study found that the people that moved to a more middle-class type neighborhood in the suburbs were taking home more pay and had a higher chance of moving out of the subsidized houses. Additionally, the youth had a much higher graduation rate. Simply put: Take the poor people out of the desolate, depressing public housing projects where they are surrounded by perpetual poverty and put them somewhere where they can see that there IS something better out there and they WILL improve their own conditions and become productive members of society.

I think the mass majority of people understand and believe that concept. But lets face it, some people aren't willing to risk that. I have to agree some times, I understand where they are coming from. This is why I made the comment I did about doing right or your out. That is the hardline that the local government needs to take, what they refuse to take a stand on.

What you wouldn't know however, lack of doing this creates a generational cycle that self perpetuates. I'll give you a example and it speaks to what you said regarding surrounding themselves with better. Do you know many of the children if not most do not understand that they are poor? Many of the children do not understand what is afforded to them comes from the hard work of others? My wife, uncle, dad and I talk about this very same concept, this miscue happens all the time. For them, it becomes merely a talking point when they get order to justify their track in life. It only makes the fight harder in life to set these people on a path to success. Taking a 22-30 year old and making them work for something is a lot harder when they are required to do that against a 0 to 60 concept. They tend to want immediate satisfaction when they work hard, but they do not generally understand that concept when you have no grasp on what real life is. how hard it is to be a middle class person in society, how some times, its not as plain to the eye to see the future. These are skills that are not afforded to them, in part by the city.

Technically housing is a human right, it is called the need to dwell. Those who are homeless will still find a way to create a home for themselves, even if it is just a corner of pavement. The reason for having these programs that are there to help the poor and provide homes to people who would more than likely be homeless is to prevent our country from having those extreme poverty ghettos that plague other countries with. I personally would not want to have the same kind of poverty that plagues Brazil.

Also another thing to keep in mind, for every one person that is abusing the system, there is probably 100 people that are grateful for the system for giving them some form of stability in life, even if it is only the bare minimum. Brambleton isn't that big of a barrier to deal with, it is no interstate, and the difference between Brambleton and Waterside is Waterside only has a limited amount of land to work with, while north of Brambleton has the entire city of Norfolk, so creating that bridge is actually less complicated for Brambleton.

I will agree with that last statement, redeveloping the projects around downtown would double the size of downtown if the redevelopment was done so in an urban fashion with navigatable(I think I might of just made up a new word there...or just spelled it wrong) urban blocks.

Actually that is a technique that we have been using in Portland for the last 30 years, it is call decentralizing poverty. By decentralizing poverty and integrating it into the neighborhoods it has managed to change the issues with poverty in Portland by giving people better neighborhoods to live in and a better chance at succeeding because of their surroundings and better schools. When poverty is bunched in key locations, it is impossible for people to improve on their own lifestyle if they are surrounded by everything that is bringing them down and holding them back. I wouldn't be surprised if the city was able to do a one for one by replacing half of the needed units within their current location with a more urban neighborhood setting, then provide the other half of the units needed by spreading them out in single family homes and duplex buildings throughout the rest of the city.

But the most important thing to do is to have a well structured plan that shows all the moves that will happen and how it will effect everyone involved in it. Which from what I have seen so far, St Paul Quadrant has been doing a good job with this, though it is starting to get to the point where it would be nice to see some physical activity happening with St Paul Quadrant, rather than just talk and planning.

I'm starting to think the city has no idea how to decentralize these individuals because the plan has been for decades, keep them there, no matter what. They have such a bad stigma, nobody wants them around, mostly in part by the city not tweaking their policies. In the past years, it has become a topic of discussion because instead of slowly doing away with these areas, they simply did nothing at the same time realizing Norfolk can be a thriving city.

[usermel]

This whole topic if difficult for us, imagine how those in power feel!!HAhaHAHA! As we all have stated in one way or another, the projects were funded by the government, years ago. I think there historical because of that fact alone and Norfolk being one of the first to get the funding makes them special believe it or not. The politics involved are tremendous. Housing being a right isn't a question I can answer for those who feel it isn't and I don't have anything to say in response because I feel we all are entitled to have an opinion and I don't think the intent was mean. I think the intent of that statement was simply, "get up and work for what you need" and thats it. Me myself, I don't know if it's a right or not but, I hate seeing folks homeless period and I just think its good for society as a whole. And as one member stated, we could be like other countries that don't provide housing for less fortunate and be worse of than we are. I know thats hard to believe but, I been abroad and this country has the right idea when it comes to housing the less fortunate. America is a great country and thats what makes us seem as we are, the most fortunate humans on the planet in terms of the possibilities here!!!!

Norfolk has many issue that have lingered like a cold or cough that wont go away. Flooding, lack of land and money to improve the city and over budget for the Light Rail to name a few. The PJ's are just another one of those issues. We have to put the people who live there in a place at worst equal to were they are now. It will help the city long term if they do so. Norfolk needs a financial district that is middle class up at best to attract other companies to come here for years to come. Right now, we have a wonderful stage set for an incredible next 100 years but, some issues if left alone much longer will slow that process!!!LGNM

[brikkman]

This whole topic if difficult for us, imagine how those in power feel!!HAhaHAHA! As we all have stated in one way or another, the projects were funded by the government, years ago. I think there historical because of that fact alone and Norfolk being one of the first to get the funding makes them special believe it or not. The politics involved are tremendous. Housing being a right isn't a question I can answer for those who feel it isn't and I don't have anything to say in response because I feel we all are entitled to have an opinion and I don't think the intent was mean. I think the intent of that statement was simply, "get up and work for what you need" and thats it. Me myself, I don't know if it's a right or not but, I hate seeing folks homeless period and I just think its good for society as a whole. And as one member stated, we could be like other countries that don't provide housing for less fortunate and be worse of than we are. I know thats hard to believe but, I been abroad and this country has the right idea when it comes to housing the less fortunate. America is a great country and thats what makes us seem as we are, the most fortunate humans on the planet in terms of the possibilities here!!!!

Norfolk has many issue that have lingered like a cold or cough that wont go away. Flooding, lack of land and money to improve the city and over budget for the Light Rail to name a few. The PJ's are just another one of those issues. We have to put the people who live there in a place at worst equal to were they are now. It will help the city long term if they do so. Norfolk needs a financial district that is middle class up at best to attract other companies to come here for years to come. Right now, we have a wonderful stage set for an incredible next 100 years but, some issues if left alone much longer will slow that process!!!LGNM

I wrote this long post, but decided not to publish it. So I will just say this: yeah, what I said did come across as mean and uncaring, it was not my intent. But that doesn't change my feelings on suring up the policy and make people honest about the free money they are receiving.

Also, remember, these programs are partially federally funded as well, which means, its EVERYONES money, not just the local city.

[mistermetaj]

This whole topic if difficult for us, imagine how those in power feel!!HAhaHAHA! As we all have stated in one way or another, the projects were funded by the government, years ago. I think there historical because of that fact alone and Norfolk being one of the first to get the funding makes them special believe it or not. The politics involved are tremendous. Housing being a right isn't a question I can answer for those who feel it isn't and I don't have anything to say in response because I feel we all are entitled to have an opinion and I don't think the intent was mean. I think the intent of that statement was simply, "get up and work for what you need" and thats it. Me myself, I don't know if it's a right or not but, I hate seeing folks homeless period and I just think its good for society as a whole. And as one member stated, we could be like other countries that don't provide housing for less fortunate and be worse of than we are. I know thats hard to believe but, I been abroad and this country has the right idea when it comes to housing the less fortunate. America is a great country and thats what makes us seem as we are, the most fortunate humans on the planet in terms of the possibilities here!!!!

Norfolk has many issue that have lingered like a cold or cough that wont go away. Flooding, lack of land and money to improve the city and over budget for the Light Rail to name a few. The PJ's are just another one of those issues. We have to put the people who live there in a place at worst equal to were they are now. It will help the city long term if they do so. Norfolk needs a financial district that is middle class up at best to attract other companies to come here for years to come. Right now, we have a wonderful stage set for an incredible next 100 years but, some issues if left alone much longer will slow that process!!!LGNM

Project housing is not historical, aesthetically pleasing, or sustainable as a center for low income and poverty. There is a reason for the push to de centralize poverty; to reduce crime, foster a morale among the lower class to work hard and take care of their homes, etc.

Furthermore, having the right to housing doesn't give you the right to pick and choose where that housing can be. Downtown land is too valuable at this junction in the life of Norfolk and a change is necessary. The projects can be cheaply built elsewhere and in reality shouldn't be built at all in the form of the 60s.

[VBIllini13]

http://hamptonroads.com/2011/03/norfolk-agency-puts-downtown-office-tower-sale

This is terrific. The Royster building is a beautiful building and an excellent example of successful historic preservation. It would be great if it could be rehabilitated into apartments/condos. That would for sure liven up downtown, especially Granby Street.

[Ghentite]

http://hamptonroads....fice-tower-sale

This is terrific. The Royster building is a beautiful building and an excellent example of successful historic preservation. It would be great if it could be rehabilitated into apartments/condos. That would for sure liven up downtown, especially Granby Street.

Sorry to say, but this is not terrific. You have a company that employs 300 workers and they are taking them away from downtown. We need more jobs downtown, not condos. We have enough plans in the mix for condos and apartments and they'll be pointless if we can't get anyone to fill them.