Buttermilk & Molasses

The Downtown Plan: Did Somebody Say "Implementation"?

It's come full circle, and in a good way.

Almost two years exactly since Richmond's Department of Community Development invited the public to Plant Zero in Manchester to roll up their sleeves and create a vision for a revised Downtown Master Plan, they're doing it again.

Only this time it's an actual step in the implementation process.

On Saturday, June 27, from 9:00 until 11:30 a.m. there will be a charrette-style kickoff meeting to explore the potential rezoning of the Manchester area. The meeting is open to the public and will be held at the Sacred Heart Center at 1400 Perry Street.

From the announcement:

The study area is generally bounded by the James River to the north and east and Cowardin Avenue to the west.  The southern boundary is generally defined as the Hull Street corridor west of Commerce Road and Maury Street east of Commerce Road.

The purpose of the meeting is to seek input on the future of development and land use in the Manchester Area.

In support of the discussion, City staff will:

• Review the recommendations of the Downtown Plan
• Present best practices in planning and urban design
• Conduct a hands-on session with meeting participants

If you are unable to attend this meeting and would like to be added to our mailing list, please call or email the Department of Community Development at 646-6310 or ASKCOMMUNITYDEVELOPMENT@RICHMONDGOV.COM

I'll be out of town that weekend, so someone else is going to have to dish on the actual event.

The Downtown Plan: Is It Too Late To Hire the French?

Hand it to the French and the New York Times -- one creates a grand vision, and the other introduces it to the world.

Having been introduced to the proposals for Paris' new master plan, I'm almost ashamed to have participated in a very engaging master planning process for downtown Richmond. As the article do directly notes: "even if none of the proposals are ever built, they show a daring that has not been seen in a Western city for decades".

There are some amazing designs, but what is even more amazing is that the city of Paris was so intentional about the purpose of its future plan -- and that the architects responded so passionately to the challenges:

The aim of the study was twofold: to create a plan for a greener, more sustainable city, and to break down the isolation between the outlying neighborhoods and the historic center. The most thought-provoking designs operate on multiple levels, reaching beyond the issue of sustainability to address deeply entrenched social ills.

Among the most audacious is Mr. de Portzamparc’s plan, which proposes demolishing both the Gare du Nord and the Gare de l’Est and replacing them with a single massive European train station just outside the city center. The station would link to the Eurostar train lines to London and Brussels, as well as to a new elevated maglev train that would run above the périphérique. It would also anchor a towering new global business district, a rival to La Défense.

Mr. Rogers’s plan is equally ambitious. Noting that the tracks that connect to the city’s main train stations cut Paris into wedges, like slices of a pie, he proposes burying them all underground. A vast system of public parks would be draped over these new underground tracks, connecting poor and middle-class neighborhoods.

Check out all of the designs at Bustler.

I wonder what it would take for the Richmond region to step back and design a future urban center that reconnected our communities, embraced green technology, emphasized public spaces and dreamed of genuine transformation...

I mean, besides an entirely new generation of leadership.

What a Difference a Streetscape Makes

Richmonders got a taste of what urban planners can do to provide a sense of what's possible a few years ago when the folks at Dover Kohl blew through town to help develop the Downtown Master Plan. But I'm still occasionally struck by how simple changes can transform the look and feel of urban spaces -- and how many words a good picture can really say.

Chris O'Brion tipped me off to a NYTimes article on New York City's first street design manual, which is focused on transforming the vacant, utilitarian streetscapes that were so popular in the 1970s into spaces that welcome pedestrians, bicyclists and horseless carriages alike. The article comes with a nifty Flash image showing what a transformed Carlton Avenue in Brooklyn might look like with the new designs in place. I've captured the before and after photos below.

All of this makes me think about Richmond's amazing Downtown Master Plan and its emphasis on language -- using words to describe what a future urban center could become. It would be awesome to see what more future-themed pictures could tell us about a revitilized downtown, and how they might inspire more Richmonders to envision a future different from our past.

Even more exciting than what New York has been doing is what the smart-as-whip folks at GOOD Magazine have been doing -- running their own street redesign contest. "Project Design A Livable Street" uses a redesign of the intersection of Manhattan's Amsterdam Avenue and West 76th Street as a starting point. (Click on the before and after images below for more detail; or go to the interactive graphic at GOOD to see exactly what's going on here.)

The winners included a redesign of a Portsmouth, Virginia, streetscape. Go check them out -- it's some amazing stuff, and a good model for how we could do a better job of imagining our future streetscapes.

New Chris OBrion Cartoon: Richmond as Ancient Rome

He's simply the funniest editorial cartoonist around, and maybe the only living, breathing one regularly tackling Richmond-centric issues. Check out Chris OBrion's other stuff at Richmond Cartoon.

The Downtown Plan: Flynn Becomes the Fulcrum

Love her, hate her or have no opinion about her, one thing's for sure -- you can't argue that Richmond's Director of Community Development hasn't made an impact on local politics with the process for a new Downtown Master Plan her department introduced almost two years ago.

The extremely public process, which has stepped alternately on the toes of the state, private business, Virginia Commonwealth University, and individual residents, ran into the rather inflexible wall of governmental bureaucracy early in 2008. It has spent the better part of a year being chipped away at by politicians and developers.

In the process, Rachel Flynn has somehow found herself in the center of a debate about the role of government officials, the motivations of politicians and the desires of developers.

Style Weekly recently wrote about Flynn's collision with several members of Richmond's City Council, who apparently feel the director might want to decrease the volume of her public advocacy and host more coffees with private developers.

This week, two readers respond. One speaks with a degree of authority about the appropriateness of Flynn's advocacy. Architect Sanford Bond once served on the very Planning Commission that has been a significant speedbump in the adoption of the Downtown Master Plan, and writes:

As reported May 6 (“Flynn’s Last Stand,” News & Features), it seems that the developer and certain members of City Council and the Planning Commission want us to believe that the planning department, led by its director, Rachael Flynn, is unreasonably obstructing the approval of the development of the property. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The city would not stand in the way of the property being developed in accordance with its existing zoning, M-2. However, the developer bought the property with full knowledge that his proposed residential development did not conform to that zoning and that he would require a rezoning in order to do what he wanted. In fact, it seems that he has applied not only for a rezoning but also for a special use permit because he does not even want to conform to the height requirements of the rezoning. Unfortunately, it seems that he made a rather imprudent decision to assume that he could do whatever he wanted.

Getting this development right is something in which the whole community has a stake. While the owner’s interests should certainly be taken into account, rezoning and special use permits must reflect the public’s interests before private interests. I think it is entirely appropriate, even essential, that the planning director weigh in on the debate on behalf of the greater good for the whole community. Flynn’s sound professional judgment, detailed knowledge of good planning practices and clear vision of Richmond’s future will enable city policy-makers to make the right decisions on Echo Harbour. Far from being condemned as an obstructionist, she should be commended as a strong and principled advocate for the public interest and Richmond’s future.

Baseball in the Bottom: Three Ways Forward, Only One Way To Win

It seems to me that a bit of a substantial shift is happening in the ongoing (and going and going) debate about the future of baseball -- in Richmond, generally, and in Shockoe Bottom specifically.

Part of the shift happened over time as a series of public discussions organized by the developer of a proposed $360 million-plus mixed use reinvention of the Bottom were more divisive than decisive -- most in attendance at the sessions appeared more captivated by the details in Highwood's balance sheets and financial calculations than in the vision the developer and local baseball afficianado Brian Bostic were pitching.

When financial statements tank a compelling vision, it's probably a good time to find a relief pitcher.

With public opinion increasingly fractured, this week's press conference in which Mayor Dwight Jones discussed the results of a $100,000 financial study of the proposed development and accompanying ball park was not what Highwoods wanted. Jones changed the game with a very simple change-up -- figure out how the proposal should factor in a GRTC bus transfer station, a future high-speed rail connection, and the deep African-American historical roots of the area.

Not what Highwoods wanted. But maybe exactly what they needed.

 There are three ways Highwoods can proceed with their multi-million play. Two paths are sure-fire ways to lose everything.

They can call the game due to inclement weather -- the collision of two fronts, an economic low pressure system and increasingly high pressure of public dissatisfaction. Highwoods walks. The Bottom continues to increment its way forward. Hello, status quo.

They can keep on slogging through the game, relying on an inning-by-inning strategy developed long before the game got interesting. It's always fascinating to watch a team run the same play, again and again, even as the entire game has transformed around them. Fascinating in that sick, car crash sort of way. Recent articles in the Times-Dispatch about parking challenges and prospective teams waffling -- along with Style Weekly's consistently solid reporting on the numbers -- are an example of the water torture that will ultimately ensure the plan falls apart.

Shared Air's Mark Brady alludes to the third way, the way opened up this week by Jones:

This thing is on life supoport unless Highwoods and GRTC, the two organized projects many oppose, get their acts together and find a way to integrate their missions/goals and offer one hellacious destination that brings along, in a meaningful clearly explored way,  the other two pieces of unfocused heritage projects people like — historic green market, Lumpkins 1/2 acre — into the mix. When it comes to Shockoe and it’s potential, maybe some folks are suddenly realizing they hang together or they hang separately. Maybe.

The real opportunity -- the bold, visionary one that Richmond will most likely resist -- is to bring all the players into a new conversation. Using Highwoods' proposal as a starting point, organize an aggressive, hands-on charrette that includes the developers, the ball team investors, GRTC, Virginians for High-Speed Rail, representatives from Shockoe Bottom and adjoining neighborhoods, the Capital Trail folks, champions of the Slave Trail, the city's community development division, the Sierra Club, the James River Park system, property owners and more.

Transform the conversation from one about baseball into one about transforming the former heart of the city back into a healthy, vibrant organ -- one that is green, sustainable and energetic. One that connects the people of the region with transportation, history and soul. A place with a ball park, perhaps, but certainly a place that transcends America's pasttime by creating a space that represents the best of America's values -- built on community, connection, conversation and commerce.

The Downtown Plan: The Absolute BEST Editorial Cartoon

Illustrator Chris O'Brion recently sent me a link to his latest cartoon (shown above), which neatly skewers the inane politics currently enveloping Richmond's Downtown Master Plan. It might be the best editorial cartoon you'll see about the subject -- stop by his site and check out his equally scathing cartoon on the Richmond Times-Dispatch.

The Downtown Plan: Why Can't We Be Friends?

If you believe Style Weekly, Richmond's director of community development is on the ropes. Rachel Flynn, whose last public tangle came when she held a similar role in Lynchburg and crossed the Rev. Jerry Falwell, has somehow managed to irk a handful of Richmond City Council members. It all started when Flynn, rather politely, called bullshit on the three year make-out session between the developers behind Echo Harbor and a handful of City Council members.

Funny how things work.

Style's Amy Biegelsen reports:

Last week’s outburst from Flynn and the reaction from some politicians brought things to a head.

“The mayor makes the decision with regard to who’s in charge of community development,” Tyler says. “I would respectfully ask him to consider what she has done and respectfully ask her to leave.”

For those who have been watching the drama unfold, Tyler’s scolding Flynn is hardly new. The two have butted heads all along, but public admonishments of Flynn from council members Marty Jewell, Reva Trammell and Doug Conner are new to the mix. Last week, Conner, who also sits on the Planning Commission and serves as chair of council’s land use committee, sent the mayor a letter calling for her resignation.

“I think what she did was appalling, utterly appalling,” Jewell says, adding that he plans to send his own letter to the mayor this week.

Trammell “finds [Flynn’s] conduct unacceptable and she needs to be disciplined if not terminated,” the councilwoman said in a statement through her legislative aid Henry Meese.

But Flynn's outburst and the reaction of several council members pales in comparison to the streaming comments from Flynn's most passionate supporters and her righteous detractors in the comments sections of Style Weekly and of the Church Hill People's News.

Here are a few of my favorites, but by all means go and read them for yourself:

• An appointee has a constituentcy of one…the mayor. If the mayor supports an appointee she stays. If the mayor does not have faith in the individual, she goes. The opinion of the four council members is irrelevant. Looked at another way though, five members of council, a majority, did not call for her resingation.

• I think Flynn’s problem is that she is working for/with a city council / city govt that has shown itself time and time again to be petty, corrupt, short-sighted, irrational and incompetent. The only thing that’s consistent there is inconsistency. That’s not to say that there aren’t some great, professional people at city hall - because there most certainly are. But this city, the “leadership,” is just…. argggg!

• wow the flynn kool-aid has really gone around. wasnt it the flynn cult that approved of the oakwood heights monster?

• Well I don’t like Flynn. She is arrogant and has a nasty personality sort of like the folks on the hill.She needs to go. She should have left with the Wilder administration. Goodbye Rachel.Get out of Richmond with your nasty attitude.She is also a liar.

• Policy-Maker Hall of Shame Nominees: For “Mendacity and Amoral Politicking” –Bruce Tyler, Marty Jewell, Reva Trammell and Doug Conner. For “Offensive Spineless Silence” — Dwight Jones, Charles Samuels, Chris Hilbert, Kathy Graziano, Ellen Robertson, Betty Squire

• Thank Goodness someone has the stones to stand up to the Developer Boyz and their hired lackeys. Rachel Flynn and Umesh Dalal are THE bright lights in so-called city government.

• I agree, this is not about Rachel Flynn who is just doing her job. This is about doing the right thing for the long term health of the city, our citizens and visitors. Protecting the river and its views is the the right thing. I challenge the region, corporate and government, to go hire any top urban planner in the country and ask their opinion about this Echo Harbor....it is a no brainer.

• Bruce Tyler has no shame, he attempts to line his own pockets through his smug, disgraceful performance in office. What has he done to help his First District constituents or anywhere else in the City?

• Rachel is a city planning expert who we are so fortunate to have in Richmond. I got involved in caring about our downtown because of her enthusiastic and inclusive approach with the master planning process. Our biggest problem today is that someone of Rachel's caliber was not here 20 years ago and we are paying the price now.

• Rachel Flynn has no integrity. She has no ethics and she has no sense of right or wrong. Those of you touting the great "stand" she is taking have no idea what she is. Do you people honestly think this issue has developed in a vacuum? This is just the last straw in three years of atrocious behavior. Flynn has done a lot of damage in this city. As far as I'm concerned she can't leave fast enough.

• Flynn is an incompetent blowhard who cloaks who lack of experience and ability in controversy that takes eyes off of her inability to actually get anything done. It's great to have a "vision" but it is vital to be able to capably implement that vision. She creates roadblock - the same roadblocks she created in Lynchburg - she demonizes the "bad guy" and glorifies her "cause." That is all well in good in RachelLand but Richmond needs to move forward, and needs to move forward now. Her job is more than one dimensional - and aside from stirring up controversy she doesn't seem to have any other skills. This downtown plan could actually be implemented by someone who knows what they are doing. It is way over time to boot her to the curb.

• Rachel is standing up for what should be the priority of this city: Making the riverfront an area that all citizens, not just a few, can enjoy. She has tremendous public support because she included so many city residents in the conversation and development of the Master Plan. Rachel is a voice of Richmond citizens, and losing her would be a massive loss for the city and the region.

• I respectfully ask Planning Commissioner Bob Mills, City Councilman Marty Jewell, and City Councilman Bruce Tyler to resign. Citizens are tired of the "Leave No Developer Behind" act that seems to be their mantra. Jewell in particular has turned his back on his constituents too many times.

Obviously, Flynn is a magnet for a lot of people's passions -- about politics, about Richmond, about property rights and about the public interest.

My reality of Rachel is that while she can be politically tone deaf, she's passionate to the core about good planning, intelligent development and the balance between private and public interests. Her advocacy and intensity have been a welcome addition to Richmond, and have served to spark a fairly significant level of public engagement around planning and political issues.

There's nothing bad about getting people engaged.

Next Thursday -- if not before -- Mayor Dwight Jones will have a very public forum to engage the politics of this issue head on. Jones will be speaking at a public Greater Richmond Chamber, delivering his "State of the City" address. If he takes a public pass and refuses to explicitly state his support of Rachel Flynn, her office and the Downtown Master Plan, Richmond will take several steps backward in terms of hard-nosed, transparent leadership.

The Downtown Plan: Hey, Ho, How High Can We Grow?

David Ress hung out at the Richmond Planning Commission discussion on Richmond's Downtown Master Plan yesterday and filed a summary for Tuesday morning's Times-Dispatch. Essentially, after more than a year of dickering around with the plan, the commission stopped punting and went for a feeble field goal -- allowing developers the right to build slightly taller buildings along the James River, and giving the city the power to restrict the height of buildings.

While the new height limit voted yesterday by the city Planning Commission is higher than the current limit, it still would lop off some top stories of two buildings developer George Ross wants to erect on the riverfront below Libby Hill Park. The vote was 7-2.

The new limit is about 15 feet less than the shorter of two buildings Ross wants to erect.

Commission members also voted unanimously to add language saying the city had the power to preserve river views, specifically including the Libby Hill Park view, by limiting the height and mass of buildings.

In other words, the Richmond Planning Commission told developers and politicians that they're both beautiful, and that litigation over future development is a great way to proceed.

I've been something less than a fan of how the planning commission has handled the Downtown Master Plan since it landed in their laps almost 18 months ago, but this sort of fumbling compromise is not what either side of this debate needs. It creates uncertainty for the developers and for the advocates of smarter growth, and sets the board for all sorts of legal maneuvering as future projects attempt to move forward.

Now the final decision sits with City Council, as the planning commission's revisions to the plan move into that august body's hands. Color me less than confident.

The Downtown Plan: Hey, Charlotte, Check Out the Size of My Tower...

The initial TD news piece on Monday's move by the Richmond Planning Commission to amend the city's Downtown Master Plan -- allowing taller buildings along the riverfront -- was more interesting for the comments it generated than for the brief news summary itself. The second version of the story, which appeared in Tuesday morning's paper, is longer, has more context and lacks the interesting comment thread. (Note to TD: Fix this. Comments should travel with subsequent versions of the same story.)

A sampling from version one's comment thread:

• PaganLing writes: This sounds like a sure-fire formula for the bringing of lawsuits claiming that the planning code is being administered selectively as well as charges of undue influence being wielded.

• Dogtown writes: Another ill-considered decision. Supposedly the purpose of a master plan to to bring order to chaos. What this decision accomplishes is disorder which creates additional revenue streams for developers, attorneys, planning consultants, architects, and others who will inevitably earn fees as a direct result of the controversy they can encourage in the absence of specific limitations in the master plan. Another case of politicians failing to make the hard decision and “kicking the can further down the road” for the decisions to have to be dealt with, case-by-case, in the future at considerable taxpayer expense, I suspect.

But best of all was this post by Joey, which I tried to convince myself was satire, but ultimately concluded was genuine in its sentiment. Which is insane.

• Joey writes: Come on people are you serious? Do you know how long its been sine Richmond has gotten a chance to get a new tallest building. If you take this away the skyline will never look signifcant with tall towers and only small chubby box towers. I for one am in favor of a new tallest built anywhere in the downtown area. I am sick and tired of the James Monroe tower being the tallest and looking like a soviet union building. Most cities have been getting repeatedly new tallest towers for years now and its about time for Richmond to play with the big boys and show them that we can play that game too. Its time to build high in the sky Richmond and show what you are capable of.

Yes, what Richmond needs is to build the tallest building, to flash it around to its sister cities and to sheath it in latex.