Buttermilk & Molasses

The Downtown Plan: Public Square Tackles the River

While it's new format -- a slate of panelists discussing an issue, followed by public comments -- may have limited the number of people who could speak, last week's Pubic Square appears to have provided a stronger narrative than most of the Times-Dispatch's previous 19 or so events.

That's a good thing.

The great benefit of the TD's attempts to open the public conversation on all issues great and small (affordable housing, development along the James River, pop culture) is that it creates a space for community dialogue -- rather than the host of lecture series that seem to have materialized around the region. That the paper can then leverage the Public Square events means that tens of thousands of Richmonders who did not attend a session can get a broader perspective on the issues addressed.

But over time, the Public Square events have started to feel a bit like City Council meetings with the usual suspects showing up time and time again to share their opinions on everything under the sun. And the sessions have tended to attract those with a stake in a particular game -- advocates for affordable housing, for instance -- more than they have attracted citizens interested in learning more about the issues facing the region.

Last week's Public Square attracted about 200 people to hear from six panelists with opinions on and expertise around the James River. Their moderated discussion was followed by a dozen or so residents who shared their perspectives on the topic. Here's a snapshot, focused on the panelist's vision for the James River:

White: My vision would be to ensure the sustainability of the resources. Everybody wants a piece of the river -- whether it's development, water withdrawal, whatever. And I think it's going to require a lot of innovative thinking, cooperation, and communications in the future. And I would like to just mention one thing to [Secretary Bryant] that I am extremely proud of: the program DEQ put together last year on water treating for nutrients in the river. That's out-of-the-box thinking. It was one of the first in the nation.

Bryant: My immediate goal is kind of a boring, technical one. And that is in terms of wastewater treatment plants. A decade ago the commonwealth set certain goals in conjunction with Pennsylvania and Maryland and D.C. to meet certain pollution reduction goals in terms of phosphorous and nitrogen going into the bay. We are on track right now to meet our 2010 goals for wastewater treatment plant upgrades. Two years ago, three years ago, we never would have thought we were going to get there.

Silvestri: I bet you have a broader vision.

Bryant: Access points. We want a sustainable river -- not just for the fisheries, but for those of us who like to enjoy them. I think between Richmond and Williamsburg, what have we got, two? I think we've got two real good accessible public access points between this very historic part of the river, Richmond to Williamsburg.

Ross: I see from the end of the present Canal Walk a promenade and a linear walkway, Capital Trail and Canal Walk, and park, all the way down to the city limits at Rocketts Landing. And I think that it is possible to have sustainable structures and commercial enterprises that produce taxable income and help pay for all the wonderful things that we all like to have and want to have.

Flynn: Our vision is Central Park, a flowing central park to really celebrate the river. And the downtown plans in the past, the river was always on the edge. Now it's in the center. And we really want to make it the focal point of Richmond, the surrounding area, and indeed, the state, given that this is everyone's capital. How can we turn the flood wall from an eyesore and something that blocks access and views into something attractive? If you look at Europe and you see these high walls, they're always beautiful, and they have attractive buildings behind and above them. How can we build stairways and landscaping along it so it's not just a liability but an asset?

How can we use native species and bring back the original species that were all along the river, which would better protect it, which would provide nourishment for the fish in there, and get back to nature? How can we build that continuous promenade and river walk that George [Ross] talks about. People really have this desire to be able to walk from one end all the way down to the other. We hear it time and time again on both sides of the river. And finally, how can we create entertainment venues and retail that can complement the recreational and other aspects of the river so that it's a one-stop shop, if you will? And we've just started, but we need to make those links even better.

Powell: Ditto to everything Rachel [Flynn] just said. And I really think Scenic Virginia's broader vision is this: A promenade where you can walk your dog, you can bike, you can rollerblade, you can push a stroller, you can fish.

It will be interesting to see if the Public Square events continue to evolve. Somewhere along the lines, perhaps, they will morph into large discussion sessions that mix experts and laypeople together around tables to share perspectives, generate ideas, build relationships and create something new. It's worked in other places.

The Downtown Plan: One More Hearing

What might be the final hearing before the Planning Commission for Richmond's proposed Downtown Plan is slated to take place during the woefully inconvenient afternoon hours of Monday, May 19. If all goes well, the revised document will get a cheerful stamp of approval from the Planning Commission and head to Richmond's City Council for a more aggressive game of political football.

The draft plan -- created during the latter part of 2007 with a great deal of community involvement -- has been moving through a series of discussions and hearings since it landed on the desks of the appointed members of the city's Planning Commission in January. To its credit, the commission held another series of public discussions on the plan in January and February, which allowed another swath of stakeholders from the community to weigh in on the proposed plan.

A public hearing on the plan will be held in front of the City Planning Commission on Monday, May 19, 2008 at 1:30pm in the conference room on the 5th floor of City Hall. The City Planning Commission will consider adoption of the plan and recommendation for approval to City Council.

The public is encouraged to attend the meeting to share thoughts on the plan with the City Planning Commission.

For more information contact Brooke Hardin City of Richmond at (804) 646-6310 or Brooke.Hardin@RichmondGov.com.

The Planning Commission requested a number of changes to the plan. The changes are available for review by the public in text-only PDF documents with changes highlighted in red.

The Downtown Plan: The River Issue Goes Regional

If you're looking for an issue worth tackling at a regional level, look no further than the James River. While that was not exclusively the focus of last night's Public Square discussion at the Times-Dispatch last night, it was a critical slice of the conversation -- a conversation that drew about 200 people, according to the TD:

The river may suffer as much from influences beyond the city's borders as from the lack of a local vision, speakers said.

"It is our inability to keep our heads above water" in the face of population growth, agricultural runoff and more "impervious surfaces," said another panelist, L. Preston Bryant, the state's secretary of natural resources.

With an increased focus on the James, speakers said, it is a key time in the river's rich history.

While the TD forum was not officially focused on Richmond's proposed Downtown Plan, the James River is at the heart of the ambitious plan to revitalize Richmond's urban core along both sides of the river. Last night's public event should serve as additional proof that the public has a healthy interest in being engaged in meaningful discussions about the future of the city.

Though the regional issue was touched upon last night, the real emphasis last night was a continuation of the ongoing debate between developers and preservationists:

Some speakers emphasized preserving the riverfront and its natural areas over commercial development. Others saw the James as a recreational, entertainment and scenic attraction and noted that it will require a public and private partnership to make the most of that potential.

"If we do it right, this could be the thing that brings people in from Short Pump," said Richmond resident Katherine Godin. "This could be the thing that gets people to turn off I-95," bringing money into the city and helping to reduce poverty.

"My vision is that you all work together to make this happen," Godin told the experts.

The discussion focused on the importance of the river as a historic centerpiece of Richmond -- "a flowing Central Park," said panelist Rachel Flynn, the city's director of economic development -- but a landmark whose reach encompasses about one-third of the state's population.

In the coming weeks, the Downtown Plan proposal will move from Richmond's Planning Commission into the hands of Richmond's City Council. The competing visions for the James River will move right along with it.

Look for several things to happen as a result:

• A slim majority of Council will push passionately to keep Richmond out of the business of promoting an engaging vision for the James River, and argue that private developers should be trusted to act as responsible stewards of the river and the downtown environment.
• The new Envision Richmond advocacy group -- along with one or two Council members -- will push a slightly different agenda, one that encourages the city to have a firm hand in shepherding a strong vision for the James River in partnership with private developers and community organizations.

Word is that a wildly ambitious private proposal is heading to the table -- one that would give private developers free reign to shape, build and profit from a massive riverfront project that would include the proposed public marina. From the little I've heard, the public should look at this proposal as nothing more than a 6th Street Marketplace or a Performing Arts Center, which is to say a plausible idea wrapped in far more public money than it's worth.

The Downtown Plan: A Coalition Emerges

Almost a year since the first public conversations began to circulate around a new Downtown Plan for Richmond and just weeks before the draft plan should be migrating through city bureaucracy to City Council, a new advocacy group has emerged to make a case for a Downtown Master Plan that is transformational.

Envision Richmond is an alliance between the Partnership for Smarter Growth, Scenic Virginia, ACORN and the Coalition for Smarter Growth. They'll be throwing their first public event tomorrow night -- an Envision Richmond rally to support the proposed Downtown Plan. The educational and inspirational event starts on the patio at Penny Lane Pub (422 East Franklin Street) at 6:00 p.m. on Monday, May 5, and continues at the Times-Dispatch's Public Square conversation on the James River at 7:00 p.m. (happening just across the street in the TD building).

The timing couldn't be better.

For much of the past year, the creation and refinement of the new Downtown Plan has been a exercise in public engagement and conversation. As awkwardly as it began last summer, the conversation may well be one of the more public, more energetic and more creative processes ever experienced by residents of the city -- inviting thousands of people into a new conversation about the future.

In recent months, as the draft has moved toward adoption, things have become more political. Hard questions about the future relationship between VCU and the City of Richmond -- and between the Commonwealth of Virginia and the City of Richmond -- have emerged. The tension between private developers and public access of the James River has been heightened.

Despite the natural move toward politics -- what is government policy, if not political, really? -- the 10 month journey of this plan has been surprisingly smooth. It helps that it is visionary. It helps that it has had champions at a grassroots level. It helps that it is the very sort of process that the Richmond region is beginning to realize is essential to public engagement.

 

Take some time to visit the Envision Richmond website and learn about ways that you can get more engaged in the creation of a vibrant future for the City of Richmond. And welcome them to the conversation. It's only going to get better and better.

The Downtown Plan: The River Gets Squared

On Monday, May 5, the Times-Dispatch will turn on the microphone and turn the attention of its well-attended Public Square series to the James River. In a slightly different twist from some of its past free-for-all forums, the James River Public Square conversation will begin with comments from a slate of river and development experts:

• Leighton Powell, Executive Director of Scenic Virginia
• Bill Street, Executive Director of the James River Association
• George Ross, R3 Development/Echo Harbor
• L. Preston Bryant, Virginia Secretary of Natural Resoures
• Rachel Flynn, Director of Community Development, City of Richmond
• Jud White, Ph.D., Environmental Policy Manager-Water, Dominion Virginia Power

The focus on the James River is timely for a number of reasons, but particularly because the river is the centerpiece to the City of Richmond's proposed Downtown Plan.

The James River was picked for discussion because it's something that binds the region, said Thomas A. Silvestri, the newspaper's publisher.

"It connects us, challenges us and will have a tremendous impact on the region's future growth and development. We are all, in some way, stakeholders in the river. It's downtown, in the counties and along rural central Virginia."

The Public Square will be held from 7:00 until 8:30 p.m. at the newspaper's offices downtown.

The Downtown Plan: Richmond's Balancing Act Along the James River

For more than two centuries, the James River was a means to an end for residents of Richmond. It was a commercial superhighway that connected Richmond to the world, and a depository for the city's waste -- biological and chemical.

That changed in large part because of the advocacy and hard work of Ralph White, who began a 20+ year effort to reclaim the James' natural wonder when he arrived in Richmond in 1980:

When Ralph White began work on the James River Park as a volunteer in 1980, the Park was an unfriendly and little used resource. But thanks to over 25 years of service he has changed that by connecting neighborhoods, children, and the city with all the natural wonders the Park and James River have to offer. Having moved to Richmond to become the Chairman of the local Sierra Club group in 1978, Ralph was eventually hired as a naturalist by the City of Richmond, and for many years, worked alone in the park with volunteers. Now manager of the James River Park System for Richmond’s Department of Parks, Recreation and Community Facilities, the Park has a budget of more than $255,000, an environmentally-friendly management policy, and the strong support of the community.

The James River is at the heart of Richmond's proposed Downtown Plan, which somewhat famously calls the James River "Richmond's great, wet Central Park." The Downtown Plan calls for the development of "a comprehensive system of natural open space along the river and the [creation of] green connections between city parks and the riverfront."

The latest issue of Virginia Business magazine wonders whether Richmond is prepared to fully appreciate and protect the region's most significant natural resource even as it is pursued from many directions by developers. As the article by Nicole Anderson Ellis notes, everyone is talking about preserving the James -- politicians, citizens, conservationists, the Crupi Report, the new Downtown Plan. The question is whether anyone is seriously focused on doing much more than talking about it.

While there appears to be consensus on the river’s economic value, two key hurdles complicate the push to tap its potential.  The first is balancing public and private interests. “Richmond’s downtown population is going to grow,” warns Victor Dover, urban land planner, architect and principal at Dover, Kohl & Partners, the Coral Gables, Fla., firm that produced the new master plan.  “That high density is going to put pressure on park space.  There’s going to be a real need for public land.”

Concerned Richmonders already are filling master plan review sessions, City Council meetings and editorial pages urging support for expanded riverfront parks and limits on construction projects that might block long-loved views. 

Also vocal are real estate investors, upset to find that the Downtown Master Plan and Crupi Report deem their high-dollar riverfront land best-suited for parks.  “The Master Plan is way too specific and way too detailed,” says James Theobald, an attorney with the Richmond law firm Hirschler Fleischer.  He represents the hopeful developers of a $160 million project on a 5-acre parcel on the east edge of downtown; a parcel labeled “green” in the draft plan. 

City officials are caught in the middle.  Encasing the river in a concrete-and-chrome canyon would spoil the draw of downtown, says Pantele.  But many riverfront properties still are zoned industrial, limiting the city’s influence.  “They can build a factory or an apartment building 300 feet high, by right,” says Pantele.  “Should they be able to do that?  No.  Are they allowed?  Yes.”

As with many challenges confronting Richmond, the future of the James River is wrapped in the sort of debate that continues to confound area leaders -- one that requires a compelling vision and that embraces the long-term over short-term gain.

This attitude toward urban development is the way of the future, says Dover.  “Being green is a good story to tell.  River preservation generates a special attractiveness and increased value.”

To Dover, whose planning clients range from Istanbul to Atlanta, Maui to Miami, Richmond’s economic growth hinges on a willingness to bank on long-term returns.  “There’s going to come a time when future generations are going to say, ‘Richmond was so smart,’ or, ‘What were they thinking?’”

The Downtown Plan: Creeping Toward Approval

Nothing beats the momentum of a one-week, intensive charrette process involving hundreds of highly engaged residents, unless you're really turned on by the slow drag of the bureaucratic, political process that has taken a week of ideas and turned it into a year of refinement.

Yes, Richmond, there is a proposed Downtown Plan and by the end of April it may transition from the desks of the Richmond Planning Commission into the hands of Richmond's City Council. It's all part of a lengthy approval process which has allowed a broader swath of stakeholders -- residents, developers and builders, policymakers and the like -- to weigh in on the plan's specific recommendations for Richmond's future downtown development.

On Monday, April 7, the Planning Commission will hear from staff from the Community Development department on accomplishments achieved from the previous Downtown Plan. And on Monday, April 21, Planning Commission members will discuss priorities for the implementation of the proposed new Downtown Plan. Both meetings are open to the public and will begin at 1:30 pm in the fifth floor conference room of City Hall (900 East Broad Street).

The Downtown Plan: Wilder Plays Reporter

Too bad Mayor Doug Wilder went editorial in his effort to be a junior radio reporter today during his three-hour stint as host of WRVA's morning radio program. On the one hand, it's what makes the man so damned interesting -- his ability to jaunt off on tangents, ask leading questions to justify his positions and to spin the PR Wheel of Fortune in a way that lands him on the Daily Double every single time. On the other hand, it's just plain distracting.

The City of Richmond's website has plenty of details on Wilder's radio cheerleading show, which included interviews with his own officials.

A number of City officials were interviewed, including Sheila Hill-Christian, chief administrative officer; Rachel Flynn, director of Community Development; Art Dahlberg, building commissioner; Chris Beschler, director of Public Utilities; Rodney Monroe, police chief; Paul McWhinney, director of Social Services; John Winter, chief project manager for Public Works; and Jeannie Welliver, project development manager of Economic Development.

Nothing like having your performance review broadcast on Richmond's 50,000 watt voice. I was particularly interested in Wllder's discussion with Rachel Flynn on the city's proposed Downtown Plan, which is winding its way through the Planning Commission on its way to City Council.

Wilder begins by asking "Miss Rachel" about the plan itself; listen to it here.

"We started this summer with a very extensive public process to hear from the people what they wanted for their downtown..." she began. "They're the ones who live here, they have visitors here, they have kids here. They know what they want for their city, and we thought 'Let's create this very open ... process' and put it to them and say 'What do you want for your city? You live here every day, you work here every day, you know what works and what doesn't.'"

It didn't take too many minutes before Wilder dashed away with questions about Flynn's background and credentials, which appeared to be a way of justifying the salaries of his top officials (which came under scrutiny by the Times-Dispatch recently).

The Downtown Plan: Getting Schooled on the Code Redux

(reposted from February 26, 2008)

One of the most compelling and important aspects of Richmond's proposed Downtown Plan is a recommendation that the city adopt a form-based code process in lieu of the old school zoning approach. It's the sort of thing policy geeks absorb through their skin -- like osmosis.

On Wednesday, March 12, the Richmond Planning Commission will host a public seminar on form-based code, which regulates development primarily by how buildings look and relate to their neighbors, not by the function of the building. The seminar will include presentations on form-based code by Dan Sloane of McGuire Woods and Geoffrey Ferrell of Ferrell Madden Lewis.

The seminar will be held on Wednesday, March 12, at 6:00 p.m. in City Council Chambers on the 2nd Floor of City Hall. You can download a copy of the plan at the Department of Community Development's website or delve into Buttermilk & Molasses' comprehensive archive of posts o Richmond's Downtown Plan.

The Downtown Plan: Planning Commission Session on March 17

Now that Richmond's proposed Downtown Plan has been twice-vetted by the public -- once through last year's series of charrettes and public sessions, and then through six neighborhood-specific meetings held over the past few months -- the Planning Commission will hold an informal session following their regular meeting during the afternoon of March 17. The Planning Commission's regular meeting begins at 1:30 p.m. and is held in the 5th floor conference room of City Hall. The informal session, where the commission members will discuss comments and feedback from the recent neighborhood meetings (as well as tomorrow night's form-based code presentation), will likely happen late in the afternoon on March 17.

The Downtown Plan: Flynn's Call to Action

Richmond's Director of Community Development, Rachel Flynn, issued a call to Richmond's residents to fall in love with a vision for a future downtown in an Op-Ed in the Times-Dispatch on February 14. (I'm still trying to catch up with my hiatus!) Flynn has been the driving force behind launching an inclusive, public process to develop a new Downtown Plan for the city, and continues to call for public involvement as the draft moves its way through the Richmond Planning Commission  to City Council.

During the two public hearings, most expressed strong support for the plan -- its vision, comprehensiveness, and implementation steps. Some, however, expressed concern. They have said that the plan is unrealistic, too detailed, too critical of VCU and the state, too expensive to implement, and too controlling of private property rights. I have been asked if I was surprised by the criticism and my response was and remains, no.

Whenever a city sets up a process that is open to all citizens -- indeed, promotes the attendance of all citizens -- it is setting itself up for agreement and disagreement, for public deliberation of ideas, for a democratic process. The "charrette" process we chose did not edit out controversial ideas, because these are what prompt public engagement. As Mayor Wilder says, this is the people's plan. It is a sharing of the values that each of us hold as Richmonders, as Virginians, as keepers of the Capital City.

Some say that if the plan proposes a park or a building on land the city does not own, then it should not be mentioned in the plan. Some say that if a proposal lacks funding, then it should not be mentioned either. I could not disagree more. The vision and ideas must be expressed, as well as details on how they would be implemented.

The Downtown Plan: Getting Schooled on the Code

One of the most compelling and important aspects of Richmond's proposed Downtown Plan is a recommendation that the city adopt a form-based code process in lieu of the old school zoning approach. It's the sort of thing policy geeks absorb through their skin -- like osmosis.

On Wednesday, March 12, the Richmond Planning Commission will host a public seminar on form-based code, which regulates development primarily by how buildings look and relate to their neighbors, not by the function of the building. The seminar will include presentations on form-based code by Dan Sloane of McGuire Woods and Geoffrey Ferrell of Ferrell Madden Lewis.

The seminar will be held on Wednesday, March 12, at 6:00 p.m. in City Council Chambers on the 2nd Floor of City Hall. You can download a copy of the plan at the Department of Community Development's website or delve into Buttermilk & Molasses' comprehensive archive of posts o Richmond's Downtown Plan.

The Downtown Plan: The Future of West Hospital

Urban Richmond takes umbrage at the Times-Dispatch editorial team's recent offerings about the future of VCU's West Hospital (No, no, the early offerings -- way back on February 22.).

I am one of those who will protest their characterization of preservationists having badly skewed values.

My question is, when did we accept VCU’s proposition, without challenge, that they have only two options: keep using an outdated ineffective hospital building or tear it down.

Why not sell the building and use the proceeds to build a new hospital nearby?

There’s plenty of vacant land around MCV- currently used as surface parking lots (View Map of Broad & 14th area).

I absolutely agree that MCV should build a new hospital building- I just don’t buy the dichotomy we’re being sold: tear it down or fail the patients.

There may, of course, be good reasons that MCV cannot acquire the vacant land near them- but that their spokespeople (and the TD) never mention it as an option while harshly criticizing their opponents suggests they are bent on pursuing their own agenda.

By the way, there's quite the discussion thread on the subject of West Hospital, the Downtown Plan process and the suggested conflicts-of-interest of the chairman of the Richmond Planning Commission over at Richmond City Watch.

The Downtown Plan: TD Editorial Board Doth Complain Too Much

Now that the Times-Dispatch's editorial board has weighed in twice in the span of several weeks on the contentious issues of the future fate of VCU's historic West Hospital Building and the state of Richmond's proposed Downtown Plan, it's hard not to wonder what bee got under their bonnet.

Is it too gauche to wonder whether the editorialists are channeling VCU President Eugene Trani? Don Harrison at Save Richmond doesn't really get hung up on such niceties and simply calls claptrap for what it is:

If you ever wanted to know what the Richmond Times-Dispatch op ed page really thinks of the rest of us — as opposed to the region’s monied business community, which it seems to exist only to carry water for — just take note of the way these “jerks” use quote marks in this lame and intellectually-dishonest piece of tripe that masquerades as an editorial; you can read the reasons why this piece sucks lemons over at Urban Richmond. [Perhaps recognizing their blatant elitism was showing, the RTD editorialists attempt a kinder, gentler version of the same spiel today — it’s all the same hooey.] A reminder of a political chairman’s considerable and acknowledged ties to institutions that he does daily business with is not a “personal attack,” by the way.

It's been pretty amazing to see how questions about the Richmond Planning Commission chairman's potential conflicts of interest turned into personal attacks, almost overnight. Since I first raised the question several months ago, I've been more amazed then most -- and have been very cautious not to attack architect Robert Mills, beyond digging into the specifics of potential conflicts.

That aside, the TD's editorial team somehow manages to make it seem like Mills was hung in effigy from lampposts downtown during recent planning commission hearings. Nothing could be further from the truth.

What is interesting is the quiet campaign that continues to build behind-the-scenes to put the kibbosh on anything that reeks of specificity when it comes to Richmond's very visionary plan. The same pundits who applaud the plan for its vision with one hand -- the Times-Dispatch editorial board, architect Mills and others -- use one of Richmond's favorite weapons to hammer it into shards.

That weapon is best known as hyper-realism. It's the sort of thing that strategic consultant Jim Crupi derided Richmond about not three months ago, and it is one of the greatest handicaps in the Richmond region.

Not to be confused with realism -- which takes a practical look at the ambitious ideas that often envelop strong visions -- the sort of hyper-realism we continue to see in Richmond is the sort of close-minded defeatism that far too often has left the region decades behind the rest of the country.

The Downtown Plan: The TD on the River (and Bonus Links)

Trapped in Washington, DC, with spotty Internet access last week, I was apparently remiss in posting about the TD's coverage of last Tuesday's public discussion on the James River portion of Richmond's proposed Downtown Plan. (I did, however, find myself compelled to post my own coverage of the session. Funny, that.)

What I like most about the TD's coverage is that if you scroll down a bit on the page, you'll discover a series of links to most of the articles the paper has published on the Downtown Plan. Alternately, you can just head to the Buttermilk & Molasses official Downtown Plan summary page and desalinate your eyes there.

Here's how reporter Kiran Krishnamurthy saw things last week:

Richmond needs to capitalize on the James River. There was no quarrel on that last night.

But how best to do that was up for debate at a meeting on the city's draft Downtown Master Plan.

"Not everybody wants to hike a secluded trail," Paul Hammond, who lives on Franklin Street, said at the meeting held by city planning officials. "We need to maximize the economic benefit the river can give us without damaging it."

Future development along the river is a controversial part of the draft plan -- some of the land denoted as riverfront parkland is now in private hands.

The Downtown Plan: How Florida Does It

A reader sent me a link to a recent column in Florida's Herald-Tribune about the return to the vibrant urban mixture that was early 20th century America. The column, by Larry Evans, explores how Venice, Florida, is looking to build a new blueprint for its future -- and the questions that the city council there should be asking. Given the work and passion put into Richmond's own proposed Downtown Plan, it might be worth asking the same questions as we move forward.

That said, what I find most compelling about Evans' piece is his focus on the history of land use in America:

The negative aspects of urban life led to deed restrictions and local land-use zoning codes that segregated uses of the land, according to a National Park Service publication about the history of land development practices.

Consequently, many Americans moved to suburbs -- land on the outside of cities that developers subdivided for homes.

Stores there were segregated into commercial nodes -- shopping centers, plazas and malls. Industries, even small shops, often went into industrial parks.

Cities and towns became neglected, woefully out-of-style places surrounded by what is now called sprawl.

For decades, people liked the separation of land uses. They moved by the millions to the suburbs. Of course, no real choice was available, because cities' quality of life had spiraled downward as land-use policies, developers, homebuilders and mortgage brokers combined to push for growth outside urban areas.

Now many people are rediscovering the appeal of cities and towns and have created -- or redeveloped and resuscitated -- downtown areas where people live, shop, work, go to parks and, in short, experience urban rather than suburban life.

The Downtown Plan: Water, Water, Everywhere

It's been a few weeks since urban studies professor and Richmond expert John Moeser's comments from a hearing found their way to the Times-Dispatch's Op-Ed page. Moeser's comments about Richmond's proposed Downtown Plan, specifically the James River, bear consideration as the plan continues its languid progress through the Richmond Planning Commission on its way to City Council. As Moeser notes, the plan's recommendations for acquiring and preserving riverfront land from future development is no new thing -- and the acreage identified by the plan are relatively paltry when compared with other riverfront cities.

Imagine that no one was here tonight. No one. Imagine that this building did not exist, that downtown was nowhere to be found, that the city itself ceased to appear on a map.

Were it not for one fact alone, what we just imagined would be reality. That we are here tonight in Richmond's City Council chambers is because of one reason, the James River --and, more specifically, the falls of the James.

... The rich history associated with the river, plus the sheer beauty and magnificence of the James, rival in significance the Capitol of the commonwealth. Both are public treasures. As such, just as the Capitol underwent a major renovation to recapture the grandeur of this public space as it was designed during the years of Thomas Jefferson, so too the James needs to be recaptured as the center of public life in Central Virginia. We can't forget that the Capitol itself would not be where it is were it not, first, for the river.

In accordance with the proposed Master Plan, the city should take advantage of every opportunity to acquire property along the river for public space and to do so as quickly as possible. It is tragic that earlier generations forgot the significance of the river and used it as a dump or sold it to private interests that blocked public access.

The purchase of Mayo Island would generate an additional 13 acres of public space. If it were possible to purchase the property currently held by the developers of Echo Harbor, five more acres could be acquired. Still another two acres would be added if the city bought the Lehigh property. Altogether, we might acquire 20 acres -- still a paltry amount when compared to the public property along major rivers in other central cities.

The Downtown Plan: A River Runs Through It

Access. Acquisition. Interconnection.

Improve physical and visual access to the James River for the public. Acquire land along the river to expand the James River Park system and protect the river. Create more links between the park system and the adjoining neighborhoods and communities.

Those are the most obvious themes running through the James River District portion of Richmond's proposed Downtown Plan, as presented to a crowd of some 50 people at Richmond's Main Library earlier this evening.

"The river, we heard time and again, is the centerpiece of downtown. It is the reason we are here," said Brooke Hardin of the Department of Community Development, as he kicked off the meeting with a general overview.

The fifth of six neighborhood-specific public meetings scheduled by the Richmond Planning Commission to discuss the Downtown Plan as it works its way from draft format to City Council approval focused on the preservation and development of the James River District.

The James River District, which runs from the Lee Bridge to the west to Richmond's eastern border with Henrico County, includes the river, its islands and the north and south riverbanks, Hardin said.

The draft plan (available online as a series of PDF documents) outlines a series of key recommendations for the River District:

• Improve visual and physical access to the River
• Acquire unique properties for open space along the River
• Create an interconnected system of trails along the River
• Maintain Brown’s Island as an outdoor festival venue and improve connectivity
• Open Chapel Island to pedestrians and kayakers
• Make Great Shiplock Park accessible
• Extend and enhance the Canal Walk
• Bring back historic boat docks
• Extend and connect walking trails
• Preserve Belle Isle and improve safety perceptions
• Construct a pedestrian bridge over abandoned rail foundations
• Improve walkability on Manchester Bridge
• Rehabilitate Mayo Bridge to its historic character
• Establish Mayo Island as a premiere public park
• Create a linear park along Miller’s Creek
• Improve wayfinding and accessibility at Ancarrow’s Landing

And while the comments portion of the evening was generally relaxed, the moderately sized crowd chimed in on a variety of topics related to the plan.

The issue of development and property rights was top-of-mind for some.

"Not everybody wants to hike a secluded trail or go mountain biking," said Paul Hammond. "As wonderful as it is, most Richmonders have not been to the [James River] Park ... we need to maximize the economic benefit of the river without damaging it ... This plan works in some ways against this."

"I'm distressed that private ownership always seems to trump the public good," said Harry Byrd. "I believe there is a middle way."

One woman made an impassioned plea for a river that creates a variety of spaces for people to gather.

"Having a park in the middle of Richmond is beautiful," she said. "I moved back to Richmond 13 years ago after living around the world ... cities around the world use their rivers as a place that people unify around. I really think there is a litany of things that need to be done; the river is a natural starting point to reinvigorate and energize our city."

But, as one speaker pointed out, "the devil is in the details."

"I really like the idea of developing the Great Shiplock Park," he said. "But you have locks that need to be completely repaired; you'll have to dredge the shiplock; you'll have to do something about the railway bridge ... it's a great idea, but I just don't think it's practical."

Ralph White, Richmond's naturalist who is widely credited with the success of the James River Park system, spoke in his capacity as a citizen during the meeting.

"The highest single priority is the completion of the VEPCO levee," White said. "The second thing is low cost, and that is signage. We already have great access to the river ... but no one can find them."

Referencing the boat trips available to the public along the Kanawha Canal, White suggested that people need more of a reason to use the boats.

"If you ride the boat once, you don't need to ride it again," he said. "Make those boats stop at two or three places, so they serve a purpose ... let food and drinks be available for purchase on the boats."

Jon Murden at River District News has more details on the evening's meeting.

The next, and final, neighborhood-specific discussion takes place from 6:00 until 8:00 Wednesday evening (February 20) and will focus on the VCU Medical Center, Capitol Area, Biotech Park and Central Office District. The meeting will be held at City Hall's 5th floor conference room.

The Downtown Plan: A Green Utopia

Environmental lawyer Brooks Smith penned a nice piece in Style Weekly recently about the proposed Downtown Plan, and the origins of Richmond's abundant green spaces. It's a wonderfully poetic look at our city's planning history, and casts a hopeful eye toward the future.

Around the turn of the 20th century, Richmond had one of the highest death rates in the country, excessive by general population and even more extreme by race because of inequalities in health care. “A clean, healthy city” became the mantra for the city’s success and persisted for decades.

Perhaps because of its early industrialization, Richmond was a bellwether for public open space. In 1851, the city began acquiring and setting aside parks in earnest — first Monroe, Marshall and Gambles Hill in 1851, then Byrd in 1874, and later Chimborazo, Riverside, Taylor Hill, Battery, Bryan, Carter Jones and Forest Hill. As the city’s planners would later reflect, the increasing complexity of Richmond society inspired both increased time and need for leisure, for respite from the noise of the day.

Although Richmond’s first streets were platted in 1737, its first zoning ordinance did not emerge until 1927. And its first master plan did not surface until 1946. Imagine 209 years of caprice before the first organized effort against it. Imagine all of the crooked paths laid bare by history. And imagine the mad genius of introducing this first master plan with a poem, a parable about man following blindly in the footsteps of a calf, from generation to generation, bearing down into the beaten, zigzagging course left by precedent and, before that, a wayward calf.

The Downtown Plan: Use Your Assets

Suzanne Morse at Smart Communities has a general suggestion for cities and regions that makes a lot of sense close-to-home as Richmond moves toward the adoption of a Downtown Plan that identifies the James River as the centerpiece of Richmond's future downtown:

We talked specifically about the Erie Canal in update New York. As I revisited that landmark I discovered that a whole tourism theme has developed around New York canals. Tying both history and place together has spawned a strategy for using what is there to draw tourists and their money. This all brings us back to building on your assets.

Almost exactly a year ago I spoke in Grand Rapids, MI about their Delta Strategy work. The community has benchmarked where it needs to go to move to the next level of economic and community development. What do these two approaches--canals and benchmarks--have in common. Just this really: in order to craft an economic development strategy that is sustainable and appropriate to your situation you have to know where you are on things that matter and what you can use to propel you to the next level. Too many communities are looking outside for answers or inside for the one silver bullet that will fix everything. Doesn't work that way. Where are the "canals" in your community that can be leveraged for change? What do you know about what needs to change?

Downtown Plan: Two More Public Events

This week, the series of public discussions on the proposed Downtown Plan organized by the Richmond Planning Commission comes to an end with two back-to-back sessions -- one that should draw huge public discussion, and one that sort of feels irrelevant.

James River
(River, Islands and Riverfront Area)
Tuesday, February 19 6:00 – 8:00 pm
Main Library
101 East Franklin Street

City Center
(VCU Med. Center, Capitol Area, Biotech Park, and Central Office District)
Wednesday, February 20 6:00 – 8:00 pm
City Hall, 5th floor conference room
900 East Broad Street

The James River session should be informative, contentious and meaningful -- the plan correctly identifies the James River as the central feature of Richmond's downtown and of the Richmond region, and calls for it to be embraced and preserved as a significant green space. That call alone has brought nervous developers to the table, and polarized some elements of the community around the issues of public space, private development and property rights.

The City Center discussion should be less spectacular, given the Planning Commission's view that Richmond has no weight in discussions about state-owned property, which would include not only state government buildings but the entire VCU Health Systems and J. Sargeant Reynolds campuses.

Once these two sessions conclude, the Planning Commission and the Department of Community Development will have to decide whether a final hearing is held before the revised plan is sent to City Council.

The Downtown Plan: Mills Calls for Balance

While I have questioned whether Robert Mills, chairman of Richmond's Planning Commission and principal of Commonwealth Architects, might have a conflict of interest in his role of shepherding the draft Downtown Plan and suggested that he might want to tone down his public comments about that plan's potential impact on one of his largest clients, I've been nothing but impressed with his grasp of the issues at stake.

And so I was pleased to see Mills step forward this morning with an Op-Ed in the Richmond Times-Dispatch that clearly articulated his view that the Downtown Plan should strike a balance between pragmatism and vision. I couldn't agree more, though it's probably important to note that Mills' view of balance is more pragmatic than my own aspirational perspective -- and that is the crux of the debate about the nature and the scope of Richmond's Downtown Plan.

Cities are evolving, ever-changing entities (another important point in the draft Downtown Master Plan). While the adaptive reuse of historic structures is the best solution for continued growth, I have learned that not all existing buildings are reusable. Buildings are built for very specific functions and often these qualities are limiting factors in the ability to adapt a structure for the contemporary needs of a changing society. Furthermore, when new architecture is called for, it is possible to build memorable architecture that is compatible with the existing urban fabric.

CITIES MUST evolve. So, too, must master plans. That is why Richmond's Downtown Master Plan is updated every five years. The process of developing this current Downtown Master Plan has been exceptionally open and transparent. It is now the responsibility of the Planning Commission to make sure not only that our plan represents the collective community's vision but also that the document is grounded in reality.

Within the guidelines for balancing property rights and acknowledging that the city cannot interject itself into state land-use decisions, our community has the opportunity to take a fresh look at what we are, what we want to become, and what it will take to get us there. We need not only a vision, but also a strategy for assigning priorities, determining costs, and creating funding mechanisms. We want this to be an achievable Downtown Master Plan. That's not an impossible dream.

Together, we can build a master plan that is both visionary and relevant.

It helps that Mills, and presumably the other members of the Planning Commission, share the community's desire to see "a downtown that is economically, socially, and culturally vibrant." We share a common sense of the destination. Whether we get there with a stolid emphasis on policy and detail or by way of a visionary plan emphasizing dreams and public ambitions remains to be seen.

The Downtown Plan: Bridging the Gap Between Policy and Design

One of the more interesting impressions I have developed in the nine months since Richmond launched its very public process to develop a new Downtown Plan is that the gap between public policy and public design is very large.

There are some real benefits to the accidental firewall that prevents conceptual thinking from running rampant -- turning the entire city into a wildlife reserve or painting massive faces on the sides of our tallest downtown buildings -- and its important to recognize that the same firewall has also helped Richmond preserve its historic architecture and maintain a sense of urban identity that most cities in the United States would die for.

But as Justus Stewart so adroitly notes in a recent piece at WorldChanging, there needs to be a better mechanism to bring together these conflicting views of development and living.

We need a meaningful dialogue between the politicians, developers, and engineers – the decision makers – and the urban designers, planners, and urban ecologists – who understand design and its impacts. Such dialogue is needed in general, but I am talking about a specific mechanism to discuss a specific issue, the design and function of a specific city.

Ideally, a functionary body bridges that gap -- an entity like Richmond's Planning Commission. But policy bodies like the Planning Commission tend to seat well-intentioned community members whose knowledge of the fundamental design and policy issues facing urban environments is slim. (There are, fortunately, exceptions. Richmond's Planning Commission chairman, Robert Mills, is recognized as an authority on historical preservation and architecture; his co-chair, Beverly Lacy, brings solid experience in preservation and housing issues.)

Stewart suggests another path to create dialog, understanding and progress:

My idea for such a mechanism is a funded training center – an institute – for urban design, which offers short, intense courses for developers, city engineers, and other decision makers to learn what makes a city function, from the perspective of human beings and other life.

This idea is inspired in part by the Mayor’s Institute on City Design, the brainchild of Joseph Riley, a whip-smart southern gentleman who has been the mayor of Charleston, SC for 32 years (the other is the pioneering work of Holly Whyte, in NYC). But I am proposing an institute in every city, which convenes local politicians not only when they have a design ‘issue’ (as the Mayor’s Institute does) but to prevent those issues in the first place. The design institute would offer education and examples about urban design fundamentals – what makes a public plaza work, what makes a street pedestrian-friendly, what makes a neighborhood livable – to those who are actually zoning, approving, building, and planning our cities. It would also provide a forum for a discussion on green design – teaching green building to the policy-makers that set building codes, and green infrastructure to the city’s engineering department. Not only would it breed better design, but since these classes would be collaborative, it could help to reduce the ‘silo’ mentality that is still pervasive in local governments.

Richmond's draft Downtown Plan, which currently is undergoing review by the Planning Commission, embraces elements of this idea with recommendations for the establishment of an Architect of the Commonwealth (a state-level position to guide decisions about preservation and construction) and the appointment of a Downtown Development Coordinator, who would help facilitate conversations between various entities with a stake in downtown projects.

In fact, the very public process the city has created for the development of its new Downtown Plan is a huge step -- bringing hundreds of residents, business owners, developers, politicians and policymakers together through a series of sustained conversations about the future of our city.

The Department of Community Development deserves a sustained round of applause for the democratization of design that has started to emerge in Richmond. There needs to be a mechanism to ensure it continues.

The Downtown Plan: Murden Covers Broad Street/Jackson Ward Meeting

Another week, another round of public hearings to invite more community input into Richmond's proposed Downtown Plan. John Murden (of Church Hill People's News and Carver & Jackson Ward News, among others) provides a good summary of tonight's session focused specifically on the Broad Street corridor and Jackson Ward:

Q: Have you though about a light rail system?
A: Yes, this is seen as the next stage of either a trolley, or more likely as the successor to a Bus Rapid Transit system. Money will be invested in BRT and this will give an idea of consituency, demand for use.

Q: Jackson Place is dead. What is the plan for Jackson Place?
A: The plan calls for mixed use. When the plan was drawn, this was stil a viable development. This is still seen as an appropriate development for that location.

Q: Emphasis on near-term of fixing sidewalks, lights, fixing pavement? Please?!?
A: Asked for a show of hands, room was near unanimous in agreement.

Q: Can the control/inform the design as big developments come in? (ie Phillip orris, which turns its back on the city)
A: Thinking about expansion of City Old & Historic Districts. Also the imlementation of a Design Overlay for certain areas.

Q: Can the parking requirements by square foot for businesses be reduced/elimated? As it is, we’re paying for spaces that never get used, and there are empty lots at night that aren’t being used.
A: The plans calls for shared parking. Trying to make zoning smarter, such as R-63 with eleimated the parking requirements for certian size/types of businesses. This process in ongoing in certain areas already (6 or 7 blocks north of Leigh/Jackson); we can look at other areas.

Q: You say mixed use. I don’t see much retail coming to Broad Street; what can we do to actually encourage more retail?
A: The plan’s main idea is to encourage infill development. Streets that are a priority for storefronts have been a target of zoning. The plan can’t really offer this much control, but a Design Overlay or City Old&Historic can.

The Downtown Plan: Oregon Hill Meeting Summaries

Both the Richmond Times-Dispatch and the Oregon Hill community website covered Monday night's public discussion on the proposed Downtown Plan. The discussion was organized by Richmond's Planning Commission, and was one of a series of neighborhood-specific discussions scheduled through late February.

Over at the TD, reporter Kiran Krishnamurthy captured this tidbit on concerns about one-way street conversions:

The plan's proposal to return one-way streets to two-way traffic generated perhaps the most comment from the crowd. One man said he was concerned about traffic jams by students trying to park on Main Street if it were opened to traffic in both directions. A woman said she would welcome two-way traffic if it meant cars would slow down.

Greg Holzgrefe, 47, a Fan architect, said he was concerned about VCU students getting hurt as they tried to navigate two-way streets as classes let out. "Kids are just walking randomly," said Holzgrefe. "I think before long somebody's going to get hit, run over." He also asked about plans to accommodate bicyclists.

Scott Burger's coverage at Oregon Hill news was a bit more comprehensive and editorial:

I will say that tonight’s meeting at the William Byrd Community House was a successful one. Barbara Abernathy began the meeting with a quick, thankful call for participation. I counted over 60 people in attendance, with enough diversity to ensure that the meeting was not overly dominated by Oregon Hill residents...

...After the City’s presentation, questions and comments came from the audience. Jason Roberts, an Oregon Hill resident, expressed support for the idea of re-connecting Pine Street across the 195 expressway, and using the resulting reclaimed area for green, open space. I raised my hand and used Jason’s comment to segue into a plea for recognition of the Belvidere Greenway that could connect the James River Park north to Monroe Park, and then to Carver (something that OH has had in its own master plan for decades). I also reminded City planners about the popular idea of retooling Idlewood west of Cherry as a two way street with a roundabout off the expressway exit ramp. I reiterated a call for boundaries with binding agreements from VCU.

...The comments kept coming. Perhaps piqued by Carver’s request, some property owners/managers wanted to know more about the plan and if there would be other parts of the City studied in the future (the answer was a tentative yes). Josh Irwin thought that code enforcement should be a bigger part of renewed attention to streetscape issues. Concern was expressed about the high rise/gas station development proposed for where the BP station is currently at the corner of Grace and Belvidere. Hardin explained that his department primarily looks at proposals like that for overall urban compatibility rather than specific architecture. One gentlemen made good points about creating more emphasis on making the VCU area more bicycle and pedestrian friendly with particular attention on crosswalks. Linda, a resident of Carver, said she had seen a lot of transportation planning come and go in Richmond, but the question of who was it for does not come often enough. She said that more traffic enforcement is needed and the counties must take part in transportation planning. Oregon Hill resident Todd Woodson welcomed and thanked Carver residents for visiting Oregon Hill for the meeting. He said that the urban forestry program needs to be brought back to strength. And he finished by saying that it was a shame that the Mayor put an end to the Neighborhood Teams civic program.

The Downtown Plan: Let's Talk Shockoe

Last week, about 50 people turned out to focus on how the Manchester District might be impacted by Richmond's proposed Downtown Plan, and on Monday another 60 people turned out to discuss the plan's potential impact on the Monroe Ward, Oregon Hill and Carver neighborhoods.

Thursday night, it's the Shockoe District's turn to talk. The Richmond Planning Commission invites the community to participate in a discussion on the Downtown Plan and the Shockoe District (including the Bottom and the Slip) on Thursday, February 7, from 6 until 8 p.m. at Main Street Station at 1500 East Main Street.

The Downtown Plan: Everybody Wants In

It must be the sexiest printed document since the manager of Virginia Beach's Abercrombie & Fitch was charged with obscenity, because everyone wants to be part of Richmond's proposed Downtown Plan. First, the Blackwell community turned out for the first of a series of public hearings held by Richmond's Planning Commission asking why Blackwell wasn't included in the plan. Now, it turns out, the Carver community is asking the same thing.

The Downtown Plan: There's No Time Like the Present

As Richmond's proposed Downtown Plan winds its way from the relatively open space of public input into the roller coaster world of city politics, there's at least one good reason to make sure Richmond delivers a visionary plan that engages the whole of the downtown community -- time and money.

For much of the past decade, Richmond has benefited from a booming national economy, and commercial and housing trends have aligned in the favor of urban centers primed for renewal. And while Richmond has yet to experience the strong economic headwinds of other sizable cities around the country, it soon will.

When things slow, Richmond will find itself with more time to prepare for its future and less money.

Whether the recession is short or long, it is almost certain to create a drag on Richmond's housing and commercial growth well into 2009. Look for condominiums to become apartments, and for plans for new commercial space to move to the shelves. Major projects in progress will stretch their timetable in hopes of landing just on the front end of a recovery, and major projects on paper will stay on paper until demand returns.

If a slowdown is on the horizon, that gives Richmond's development community time to reset. Take a deep breath. Study the landscape. Assess the future.

And it gives Richmond's government time to tackle the groundwork required by an ambitious plan -- get some of the lower hanging fruit picked. Much of the plan's front-end calls for the very unsexy work of converting one-way streets to two-way; initiating an ambitious street tree program; acquiring land for green space; and initiating a transportation study.

With a solid Downtown Plan in place, the City of Richmond and the development community will be better positioned for an economic turnaround -- and the demographic wave that will follow it.

The Downtown Plan: River District News Covers Meeting

It looks like the local media missed out on last night's public hearing focused on the portions of the proposed Downtown Plan affecting the Manchester neighborhood, but John Murden provides a good summary of the discussion at River District News.

The next neighborhood-specific meeting on the plan takes place this Monday, February 4, and will cover the VCU and Downtown neighborhoods (including Monroe Ward, Oregon Hill and Carver). It runs from 6 until 8 p.m. at the William Byrd Community House at 224 South Cherry Street.

[Apparently, the Planning Commission has access to my calendar; I literally have scheduling conflicts for every single meeting planned in February!]

The Downtown Plan: Can I Get A Witness?

Style Weekly's letter section is heavy with adoration this week as readers weigh in on the recent cover story on Richmond's Director of Community Development, Rachel Flynn. Go read all of the letters yourself. Here are a few of my favorite tidbits:

• Rachel Flynn is exactly what this city needs, and incidentally, an example of what [consultant Jim] Crupi told us we need: a fresh perspective and not the old guard and business as usual. [Jason James, Richmond]

• Ms. Flynn has helped add some long-needed democracy to the development of a city master plan through the use of charettes and public meetings. It is obvious to most that the considerable public participation in these meetings illustrates the desire of city residents, both new and established, to have a say in the future of downtown Richmond. Hopefully, the days of top-down, paternalistic planning by the city’s business and civic leaders, in tandem with developers seeking a quick buck, are behind us. [Vincent T. Brooks, Richmond]

• Several members of the planning commission need to change their archaic and opportunistic thinking and recognize that the future of Richmond appropriately is in the hands of its citizens, the folks our self-serving businessmen and bureaucrats are supposed to serve. [Vincent T. Brooks, Richmond]

• Imagine what a different, more livable, healthy and historically intact city we would have if Rachel Flynn had been in charge of planning for the last 40 years instead of the last 12 months. [Jennie Dotts, Richmond]

• After having spent many years in the Richmond city planning office, I found your recent cover story on the current master plan process interesting, if not déjà vu. It was encouraging to learn that the same planning concepts that have emerged continuously from Richmond city planners for years, some since as early as the city’s 1965 master plan, are still being embraced and proposed today. [Don Charles, Richmond]

Preach on, Richmond, preach on.

The Downtown Plan: Baliles Tackles Conflict Issue

When it comes to the Downtown Plan, it's not about a conflict-of-interest, River City Rapids says. It's about a lack of interest. In his typically subtle, yet direct, manner, Jon Baliles lands another blow:

The city attorney has ruled that the Planning Commission Chair Bob Mills does not have a conflict of interest when it comes to voting on the Downtown Master Plan (DMP) even though his firm counts the state and VCU as clients.

I never said he had a conflict of interest but rather a curious lack of it in pursuing a vigorous DMP where the city finally stood up for itself on the playground rather than have sand kicked in our face in perpetuity.

From Style Weekly:
Mills says he abstains from voting on matters relating to his clients, but when it comes to discussing the land-holding of those same clients, he says it’s his duty as chair of the commission to fully analyze and discuss all aspects of the plan. 

Although the city’s master plan includes recommendations for state-owned buildings, including those on the VCU campus, the plan has no legal authority over state-owned property. Therefore, there is no conflict of interest that bars Mills from voting on the master plan.

I find it slightly ironic that if the DMP indeed has zero authority over those buildings that Mr. Mills represents in his work capacity, then why is his concern so passionate and outright that he (and others) insist the language in the report in regards to VCU be drastically toned down and some sections of it removed completely?

You tend to be the most defensive about things that matter to you most. And legal opinion or not, people's actions tell you exactly where they stand and what they stand for. [My emphasis]

The Downtown Plan: Style Reports on Lack of Conflict

For those following the progress of Richmond's proposed Downtown Plan as it wends its way through the hallowed halls of the city's Planning Commission, Style Weekly has details about the city's attorney office conclusions about possible conflicts of interest involving the chairman of the Planning Commission. I've written a few posts (here, here and here) about potential conflicts of interest recently.

Architect Bob Mills’ clients and his position as chairman of the city’s Planning Commission present no legal conflict of interest, according to an opinion released by the Richmond City Attorney’s office Jan. 25.

Comments that Mills made came under scrutiny earlier this month when he criticized the draft of the downtown master plan for “sticking its nose” into the business of Virginia Commonwealth University and the state, both clients of Mills’ firm, Commonwealth Architects. He requested the opinion after the Jan. 21 Planning Commission meeting.

Mills says he abstains from voting on matters relating to his clients, but when it comes to discussing the land-holding of those same clients, he says it’s his duty as chair of the commission to fully analyze and discuss all aspects of the plan.

Although the city’s master plan includes recommendations for state-owned buildings, including those on the VCU campus, the plan has no legal authority over state-owned property. Therefore, there is no conflict of interest that bars Mills from voting on the master plan, the city attorney’s office concludes.

More entertaining than reporter Amy Biegelsen's web exclusive summary, however, is the content of the legal opinion issued by the city attorney's office. I sort of like the way a case is summarily made that there might be a conflict of interest, but one fell swoop of state immunity sweeps it all away. It's pretty amusing stuff.

• Mills is an "officer" as defined by the State and Local Government Conflict of Interests Act. (Attorney: A member of the Commission is an “officer” as defined in the Act.)
• The planning commission is covered by the Act. (Attorney: The Code of the City of Richmond list the planning commission as one of the agencies to which financial disclosure applies under the Act.)
• Public hearings and/or votes on the Downtown Plan are transactions. (Attorney: A public hearing and vote held by the Commission on the Plan would constitute a “transaction” as defined in the Act.)
• Mills has a personal interest in a business impacted by the Downtown Plan. (Attorney: You have confirmed that your business, Commonwealth Architects, in which your personal ownership interest exceeds three percent of the total equity of the firm, currently has professional services contracts with the State for several of its buildings. As a result of that level of ownership you have a “personal interest” in Commonwealth Architects under the Act. You also currently serve as Chairman of the Commission. A proposed Plan covering fifteen City identified neighborhoods on each side of the James River will soon come before the Commission for final action.)
• Oh, but none of that matters because any State buildings impacted by the Downtown Plan have immunity. (Attorney: Although the State owns a number of the buildings located within the area encompassed by the Plan, none of those State buildings must comply with any of the recommendations outlined in the Plan due to the State’s immunity from land use controls by a local government.)
• In conclusion: This conclusion is based primarily on the fact that no action of the Commission has a binding legal effect on any State owned buildings and as a result of that limitation, your firm, Commonwealth Architects, does not stand to realize a reasonably foreseeable direct or indirect benefit or detriment as a result of the Commission’s actions.

As I've posted time and again, the issue as I see it has everything to do with transparency and the the importance of elected and appointed officials avoiding the appearance of conflict. By raising the issue during a recent planning commission public hearing -- both by publicly lambasting the plan for meddling in the business of his firm's clients and by pointing out that his firm has done business with VCU, the state and the city -- Mills made a half-hearted attempt at satisfying what I would care the bare minimum of transparency.

The appearance of conflict still stands. Fortunately, increased media and public scrutiny might help Mills refrain from publicly taking sides as the Downtown Plan moves through the process. It's clear enough that he can't restrain himself without help.

[Update: The Times-Dispatch just posted their brief take on the same story: "It's cut and dried," Mills said of the legal opinion this evening.]

The Downtown Plan: Take Back Your City

Now that Richmond's Planning Commission is wrestling with the social and political hot potato we call the proposed Downtown Plan, it's time for the public to step forward and speak up. (Yes, once again, public.)

I know, I know. You went to the public sessions last summer and got magic marker ink all over your sleeves. And then you came out to the make-up session downtown in September -- only to hear the same mind-numbing traffic presentation and eat stale cookies. If that wasn't enough, you turned out -- not once, but twice -- to speak in City Council chambers about the proposed plan.

Here we go again.

The city's Planning Commission is inviting property owners and interested members of the public to continue to conversation on the draft Downtown Plan at a series of sessions focused on specific downtown districts:

• A discussion on the Manchester District will be held on Thursday, January 31, from 6 until 8 p.m. at the Bankuet Place at 1129 Hull Street.


• A discussion on the VCU and Downtown neighborhoods (including Monroe Ward, Oregon Hill and Carver) will be held on Monday, February 4, from 6 until 8 p.m. at the William Byrd Community House at 224 South Cherry Street.


• A discussion on the Shockoe District (including the Bottom and the Slip) will be held on Thursday, February 7, from 6 until 8 p.m. at Main Street Station at 1500 East Main Street.


• A discussion on the Broad Street and Jackson Ward communities will be held on Tuesday, February 12, from 6 until 8 p.m. at the Jackson Center Building at 501 North 2nd Street.


• A discussion on the James River (the river, islands and riverfront area) will be held on Tuesday, February 19, from 6 until 8 p.m. at the Main Library at 101 East Franklin Street.


• A discussion on the City Center (VCU Medical Center, Capitol Area and Central Office District) will be held on Wednesday, February 20, from 6 until 8 p.m. at City Hall's 5th floor conference room at 900 East Broad Street.

Triteness aside, these might well be among the most important public conversations on the Downtown Plan since more than 300 people filled Plant Zero for the public kick-off session in July.

Important for two reasons.

Reason the first -- the public conversations to-date suggest that many members of the Planning Commission are ready to err on the side of caution, practicality and those with big pockets. These six sessions create a space for the public -- especially residents and small business owners in the neighborhoods in question -- to step forward once again and share their dreams for the community.

Reason the second -- apparently the chairman of the Planning Commission is under the impression that there are 12 people who keep showing up to the Downtown Planning sessions, not some 1,200 people. And that the hundreds who have carved time out of their busy lives are mostly developers -- not the teachers, parents, businesspeople, students and homeowners that I remember seeing turn out to dream about a future Richmond. Here's wh