Buttermilk & Molasses

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.

Capturing 100 Vacant Houses in Church Hill

John Murden should have more free time on his hands, because he inevitably does something interesting with it. This past week, he found himself inspired by the chronicling of vacant homes in the Detroit area:

Inspired by Kevin Bauman’s 100 Abandoned Houses, a chronicling of empty houses in Detroit, I thought that a similar look at just our area would be very possible and at least somewhat interesting. My parameters in starting out were that the houses had to be obviously vacant in a way that indicated that the property was not merely between tenants. A well-maintained house that is for rent or sale is different than the property that has boarded windows and doors and has been sitting for 6 months or years and years. Here are houses that are vacant now, were probably vacant 2 years ago, and will likely be vacant 2 years from now.

In rolling around the neighborhood, the most vacant block that I found was the 1300 block of 27th Street. There are areas of high vacancy along Fairmount and pockets of Church Hill North.

Check out his Flickr slideshow here.

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.

Richmond's Hot Development Project - Dredging the Lake at Forest Hill Park

One of the more exciting projects happening in the City of Richmond these days is the restoration of the once-fabulous lake in the heart of Forest Hill Park. Richmond Magazine's Harry Kollatz once again demonstrates how history and current affairs can mix to create a great story, and turns his attention to the lake's history and a story of the modern efforts to reclaim another of Richmond's forgotten treasures.

And, as he notes, not one word about baseball.

...silt filled the lake, turning it into wetlands, though trees rooted and died there that weren't suited for marshes. Periodic plans to excavate the lake got nowhere, then then came Hurricane Isabelle, the remnants of Tropical Storm Gaston and other concerns to boot Forest Hill Park off the priority list. But former mayor Doug Wilder and the City of the Future plan ran funds through the pipeline that now are getting work accomplished here, at Byrd Park Lake and at Joseph Bryan Park.

Eric and Erin Ziegler, brothers who are working for Mobile Dredging & Pumping of Pennsylvania and who'll live in Richmond for about six months while pumping out the lake, explained the technicalities of the process. The Zieglers are part of the group running the big throbbing machines that will "dewater" the marsh, followed by sucking up the muck and transporting it uphill, where it will be hauled away, some to landfill, some to Gillies Creek Industrial Recycling.

Eric pointed on a diagram to forebays housed within stone containers that will sit before Reedy Creek and another meander that runs into the lake, which will act as silt strainers that will be periodically dug out and emptied by the state Department of Environmental Quality.

"Reedy Creek is a tremendous watershed," Erin explained. "And this project will prevent silt from running out here into the James River."

Pope asked that the public bear in mind that this is now an active construction site, so stay on the hilltops and watch from a distance. Inside a year, a lake will appear. His hope is that a small island, indicated on the original park-property plats, will get uncovered. "No special reason, " he said and grinned. "I just like islands. They're neat."

 An equally talented writer, Michael Martz at the Richmond Times-Dispatch, also shows up in print today with a story on the project. Plus, the TD has a slideshow of the project (including the above photo by the Td's P. Kevin Morley).

The first step in restoring a historic lake in Forest Hill Park has begun with a push to rescue fish and other aquatic life there.

A dredging crew began pumping water out of Reedy Creek yesterday from a narrow channel that snakes through the wetland that has swallowed the lake over the past two decades. Workers then began netting fish, tadpoles and whatever else living in the shallow pools that remain and sending them downstream toward the James River.

"We'll save as many as possible," said Clint Brown, a foreman for Metropolitan Environmental Services Inc., a Ohio-based company that is working with a sister firm, Mobile Dredging & Pumping Co. in Pennsylvania, to carry out the $1.7 million restoration project over the next six months.

Richmond officials say they hope the work will be done even sooner, bringing the lake back to the condition of its heyday decades ago, when it was a center for outdoor recreation in South Richmond.

"Give us several months and this will be a lake again, and a great amenity for the city of Richmond," said J.R. Pope, director of the Richmond Department of Parks, Recreation and Community Facilities.

Maybe It's Time To Catch Up with Portland

Mark Brady at Shared Air points the attention of the Richmond region's leaders to a PBS documentary that explains how a city comparable to Richmond on many levels is using $150 million in transportation stimulus funds to continue its highly successful urban reorientation.

We mentioned Portland’s $150 million transportation stimulus bonanza here last week. Well, here’s PBS’ documentary explaining what the Oregon city of similar size and geography to Richmond has been doing to earn it, and how they’ve had to tackle the transport, land use and energy economics and mindsets that worked in 1957 but no longer do. Can you spare an hour Mayor Jones, Councilpersons, GRTC, County Supervisors, Chamber and RRDPC members? Maybe we should email our municipal executives and tell them to find the time.

Of course, Portland has been at this for several decades -- which is no reason for Richmond's leaders to stop the constant talking at ideas and begin implementing a few smart strategies to change the way the entire region deals with planning, land use, development and transportation.

Just Build It, Williams Opines

Like TD columnist Michael Paul Williams, I suspect about 90% of the region's population is pretty entrenched in their opinions about when, where and whether a new baseball park should be built in the Richmond region. (They fall roughly into the camps of Shockoe Bottom, Boulevard, Manchester, western Chesterfield and "who cares".)

Today, Williams makes a pretty blunt case for just shutting up and building the damn thing:

It's time to end this long, drawn-out debate over the best site for a new baseball stadium in Richmond.

The Shockoe Bottom location represents the only real momentum we have toward a ballpark. Highwoods Proper ties, which has proposed the Shockoe Center development, appears to be the big-league player in the batter's box.

Mayor Dwight C. Jones is correct in saying there is no consensus on the ballpark. But if we wait to build consensus, we'll never build a ballpark. People are entrenched in their points of view.

The ever-cautious Jones must lead here, moving various parties and regional partners beyond self-interest...

...Everyone but Richmond seems to know downtown is the place to go.

Having all but cornered the proposed ballpark's developers into making way for a GRTC transfer station, a high-speed rail connection and something more than a passing nod to Shockoe Bottom's historical roots as a major hub for the slave trade, Mayor Jones has all but ensured that there will be a minor construction boom in the bottom right around the corner.

From where I sit (in the "Who cares?" camp), making sure we get a state-of-the-art bus transfer station, a high-speed rail connection downtown and somehow manage not to bury our history again is worth the price of admission to a new ballfield in the Bottom. I'm not convinced that the market can bear the weight of a $300 million-plus mixed use baseball-centered development downtown, but if you add in those other three anchors I'm a bit less of a skeptic.

Is Baseball Sliding into the Bottom?

I've largely stayed away from the "Where to put the ball field?" discussion -- in part because I've been exceptionally busy, and in part because I have somehow managed to remain relatively uninformed about the issue. Also, baseball is dull.

But I have to admit being intrigued by today's release of the sort-of-long-awaited report commissioned by Richmond's mayor, and the accompanying media coverage.

The Times-Dispatch promises its online readers full coverage tomorrow, but Style Weekly and the local TV stations were all over the story today. Let's begin with coverage from WWBT-12's Rachel DePompa, who focuses on the study's finding that the project is much more financially appealing with the City of Richmond backing bonds for the construction of a new ball field and a $363 million development in Shockoe Bottom:

The mayor says he likes what he sees, but he's not ready to say yes to the 363 million dollar Shockoe Center proposal.

"Many stars have got to line up in order for the project to go forward," said Mayor Jones.

According to the study, the proposal to put office space, shops, hotels and a baseball park in the bottom will most likely need help from the city in the form of credit support. But if the city backs the bonds, the city's cost will drop from 80 to about 60 million dollars.

"We have a cap on what we can carry our debt up to and so it's going to be very critical that we make the right decision as what we want to increase debt. Cause once we do it. It's done," said Richmond City Council Vice President Ellen Robertson.

But it's Style Weekly's Scott Bass who calls foul after viewing the instant replay:

The most significant finding by the consultants -- which included Davenport & Co., Economics Research Associates and Chmura Economics and Analytics -- is that financing the ballpark without credit support from the city is “highly unlikely.”

That in turn, led the consultants to recommend the city set aside $56 million in capital spending, or about 10.7 percent of the city’s $520 million proposed capital spending budget from 2009 to 2016, to secure the bonds that would finance the ballpark.

If the city decided to offer its credit support, the consultants concluded, then the “proposal would be highly feasible.”

But that’s not exactly the plan that Highwoods Properties, the project’s chief developer, has been promoting over the last eight months. That plan promises they could sell bonds and build the ballpark without the city’s financial support – a rewards-only scenario that makes a ballpark in Shockoe so much more appealing than rebuilding on The Boulevard.

Paul Kreckman, a senior vice president at Highwoods, and co-developer Bryan Bostic, head of the proposed baseball team’s ownership group, have preached for months the virtues of their free ballpark, which they promised would catalyze economic development in the Bottom without costing the city its debt capacity.

In fact, when Style asked Kreckman in February why it wouldn’t be better to rebuild the ballpark on the Boulevard, he explained that it would cost taxpayers too much. “I would much rather see the city spend its debt capacity on schools,” Kreckman said. “If the revenue stream from Shockoe Center isn’t sufficient from this project to pay the debt service and to repay the bonds, [bondholders’] security is the ballpark, not the taxpayer. ... I would much rather the city be in a position to preserve every bit of its debt capacity."

This raises all sorts of questions -- not only about whether the Highwoods proposal is a good deal for the city, but also where Mayor Jones and City Council ultimately stand on the issue.

Jones' own comments at today's press conference (courtesy of Style Weekly) provide some indication that he's prepared to play hard ball with Highwoods to get the best deal possible for the city. Jones calls Highwoods' proposal "a potentially transformative project" and goes on to bundle any forward movement on a ball park in Shockoe Bottom with three critical considerations:

• The incorporation of GRTC's proposed transfer center as part of a "transit-oriented, mixed-use town center" in the Bottom;
• Alignment with future opportunities for high-speed rail capacity linking Richmond with Washington and other East Coast metro areas; and
• "Clear plans" to preserve the history and African-American cultural heritage of the Bottom.

Still, as Council's Ellen Robertson and Style's Scott Bass both infer, the real issue is where the city should invest its financial capital at this critical moment -- or whether by upping the ante, Jones will be able to provide long-overdue resources for Richmond's crumbling schools and create an economic catalyst in the heart of the city simultaneously.

Maybe Jones will be able to create former Mayor Wilder's "City of the Future" after all.