What should be built on the banks of our “great wet central park”? The mayor’s marina? The developers’ condos? Or the environmentalists’ parkland?
This question seems to vex our politicians, according to the TD.
But the city’s quest for a marina and more parkland along the James River faces scrutiny from a skeptical City Council and developers who have other ideas how to use the land.
Ahh, the cozy warm feelings I get when “City Council and developers” are mentioned in the same sentence.
For grammatical and conceptual clarity, I’d love to know who the “who” is in the phrase “who have other ideas…” Does it refer to the developers only? Or both the council and developers?
Oh the curse of English language ambiguities. And shoddy journalism.
At issue seems to be the Echo Harbor development, which council might support(?), and Wilder apparently opposes.
“We have made it clear that we’re not interested in any of these high-rise apartments on the river,” Wilder said after a recent public appearance.
Really? None? I thought Wilder had bought a high-rise condo unit on the river. So I guess the “any” refers to future riverfront condos? Or just ones where he wants his marina?
Well, whatever our politicians think, I have a suggestion. And I’m confident all my loyal readers will rally around and help change the political discourse in this town, right?
So without further ado, here’s my idea: Build them all. Here’s some pictures from a city that’s done just that.
Vancouver’s Coal Harbour (before being built out).
Notice the strip of green and the little circle of green. Those are waterfront parks. There’s a walkway/bicycle path along the entire length of the waterfront, and a marina. And those 3 high-rises closest to the green space are condos (more have been built since this picture was taken).
Here’s some additional pictures:
One of the waterfront parks with landscaping and public art, photo by mussels.
The marina, notice the walkway/bicycle path along the water. Photo by camera obscura.
All the shiny condos with a waterfront walkway/bicycle path. Photo by mussels.
OK, I know you’re sick of my endless promotion of Vancouver, BC. But as I was reading the TD’s account of political bickering, I thought to myself, why can’t we make everyone happy for a change?
Vancouver’s Coal Harbour was a waterfront industrial wasteland that was turned into a public asset with a waterfront promenade, sidewalk cafes, parks, a community centre, and living spaces. And if you want a piece of that real estate, it’ll cost you more than a few loonies. Check it out here.
Sounds a bit like our own James River- Lucky Strike, Lehigh Cement, Fulton gas works… Now Tobacco Row, Vistas on the James, Rocketts Landing. There’s no reason that waterfront condos necessarily preclude parks, marinas, and public access to the river when planned and built well.
And that’s all I’m saying. I’m not supporting the Echo Harbor proposal (nor am I opposing it). I’m not suggesting we copy Vancouver’s architectural aesthetic.
I’m suggesting that when it comes to developing the waterfront of the James River, it’s possible to have your cake and eat it too.
December 20, 2007 at 12:10 pm
While I appreciate your appeal for big picture thinking, I believe there is a lot of scrambling going on behind the scenes that is not sufficiently reflected in the newspaper.
There is the James River Park conservation easement, there’s the new developments further down the river, and then there is a lot of confusion about what they mean for planning and connections
My personal plea is that the City keep river views public and clear, make the riverfront accessible by the public (with public pathways!), and also have a good intersaction of the Capital Trail and East Coast Greenway.
I live further up the river in Oregon Hill, but I want to be able to walk out my door and travel down the river to Williamsburg via the Capital Trail. I want to be able to walk to my neighborhood park and see the riverfront. I am not alone.
Why is it that developers’ concerns seem to always trump citizens’ in this city?
Citizens before corporations!
December 20, 2007 at 2:19 pm
[...] portion of the Capital Trail. Urban Richmond~ looks at the potentially competing plans and asks “Why not build them all?” Posted by john m at 2:13PM under RVANews-politics, community, real [...]
December 20, 2007 at 3:51 pm
Scott, you know I agree with you on the “citizens before corporations” plea. I always advocate for public involvement in urban development. I just wish we could hold politicians accountable when they don’t listen…
All I’m saying is I’ve seen development done in a way that offers rewards both to the public, and to the for-profit real estate corporations. And it occurred to me that perhaps this warring-factions mentality is hurting our chances of actually shaping GOOD development. Perhaps instead of screaming NO all the time, if we say- yes, let’s build some housing on the riverfront, then we can demand more concessions in terms of views & public access.
I mean- I want there to be more density in Richmond. I want people to move back into the city. I want to stop sprawl and suburban growth. So if there’s a market for riverfront condos that gives folks a reason to move to or stay in the city, I’m supportive. (I’d also like some inclusionary zoning laws mandating a percentage of affordable housing units, but that’s another post).
December 20, 2007 at 4:56 pm
Yeah, that’s the hard part.
I agree that Richmond as a city could be more population dense.
But it should not come at the expense of historic assets, the environment, or even the citizens’ quality of life.
December 21, 2007 at 9:46 am
“I’m suggesting that when it comes to developing the waterfront of the James River, it’s possible to have your cake and eat it too.”
I believe you are right. We are not going to enhance the city or the river by roping it off from the citizens. The James River is a developers dream and we should guide that develpment to create the greatest access to the river. Adding miles and acres to an already underfunded park system may seem like a great idea, but it means that the river will be set aside to an elite few who have the time and money to take advantage of it. As it is, the river is difficult to access. Try describing an easy way to get to Brown’s Island or Great Shiplock Park. For those in the know it is a great secret, but the vast majority couldn’t find it with a map. Opening Mayo Island and Fulton Bottom to mixed use development would open up the river to thousands more who would then cherish it as their own. It’s only when we have a personal stake in something that we take ownership of it.
December 21, 2007 at 12:18 pm
“The greatest access to the river” means preserving and increasing public paths and views of the river.
NO MORE HIGH RISES ON THE RIVERFRONT!
December 22, 2007 at 10:38 pm
Sorry Scott, just don’t agree with you on this one. Public paths, views and parks can be had in conjunction with housing- including high rise housing if planned and implemented well.
High rises provide high density, which is a good thing.
Downtown high rises were controversial when they were first built because they obscured views of the capital building. Now they’re considered an asset- a public skyline, a dense network of businesses and employment opportunities, and increasingly a dense cluster of housing.
There’s no reason that condos alogn the riverfront should actually be placed right on the riverfront. A public path should run between them, and the condos should be oriented in such a way as to maximize views of the river for non-condo owners. But condos along the river? I’m for it (with many many qualifications, of course). Especially if they put in sidewalk cafes facing the water. I’d love to have a cup of coffee while sitting along a public path watching the river.
December 23, 2007 at 6:48 pm
There’s nothing lik a slogan to make your point AND stifle debate.
Please to up again to Libby Hill and tell me the view is not ALREADY marred by the abysmal view of the Southside. I would guess the Native American view would be that Libby Hill as well as Oregon Hill mars the view from the river.
As it is we DO live in a city. Our goal, at least mine is to make that a livable, economically viable city. I WANT people to live here. I want to live here. I ALSO want to travel to Williamsburg and Jamestown via the Capital Trail. This is a case were we CAN have our cake and eat it too. Who said that wasn’t possible?
December 27, 2007 at 8:09 am
You can build a great city without more condo towers on the riverfront. There are many other ways to address density.
Towers belong downtown. Once you let them build all along the river outside of downtown, its all over. Its NoVa-ization.
There are other environmental considerations besides the PUBLIC views (which alone give a good reason)
Right now, the James River Park gets a lot of migrating birds. You allow towers to be built all over, then they might create more difficulties for these migrations.
December 27, 2007 at 3:05 pm
Last I looked, downtown was all along the river.
Nobody’s talking about destroying the JRPS, are they? I don’t think anyone is talking about taking one acre away from the JRPS. It’s only the occasional bird that won’t fly around an office building. The last one I heard about built a nest and raise 4 baby falcons there.
December 29, 2007 at 2:13 pm
No, downtown is at a certain portion of the river. Not “all along the river”.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4134773/
Expert says a single skyscraper can kill 200 birds in a day
December 30, 2007 at 9:38 pm
Your expert states “glass-skinned skyscrapers that he says kill 200 birds” compared with “glass altered with visible patterns so it’s not strictly clear or reflective.” The article also states he has had a”hard time getting people in the conservation community and the building industry to hear his call”. This also has the hallmarks of a worst cast scenario, but I’m willing to concede that glass plate windows pose a hazard to birds. I’ve seen more than one smack into our living room window (not here). So what is the solution, no more tall buildings or building green buildings that are less hazardous to wildlife.
December 30, 2007 at 9:51 pm
Part II – Last time I looked out my window James River was still there. What part of downtown is not near the river? And what is more damaging to wildlife, a densely populated, energy efficient urban area, or suburban sprawl gobbling up habitat?
January 2, 2008 at 7:24 pm
“What part of downtown is not near the river? ”
How about the part along I-95? How about the part near MCV? How about the vacant lots inside downtown? How about the blocks of empty storefronts along Main?
In fact there are plenty of places to build high rises that are NOT along the riverfront and within the existing downtown footprint.
I stand by my comments.
I am not against density, but I strongly disagree with walling off the riverfront with more condo/office high rises that impede public access and views.
January 2, 2008 at 8:33 pm
“but I strongly disagree with walling off the riverfront”
as do I. I neither want to impede public access or views. I want more of both. We just disagree on what that will look like. I think there is room for development on and near the river without destroying it.
Maybe we should both cut the sarcasm and the nitpicking and disagree agreeably.
January 4, 2008 at 12:24 pm
“I am not against density, but I strongly disagree with walling off the riverfront with more condo/office high rises that impede public access and views.”
Scott- I think you missed the point of my blog post- which was that it doesn’t have to be a trade-off between development and public access and views. In fact, development that’s well done can actually enhance public access, as it did in my former hometown of Vancouver. There were parts of the waterfront that no one visited until there was a walking path, sidewalk cafe, and people living nearby.
That said- I completely agree with you that development needs to be sensitive to its location- and mitigate its environmental impact (including possible disruption of migration patterns, drainage, erosion, etc.)
January 11, 2008 at 11:41 am
I’m not sure (exactly) why you LOVE this … ’style’ of development. You claim to be for whatever the citizens in a neighborhood support, but you your bias towards condos, high rise developments and density is more than obvious. I too am for whatever a neighborhood/owner of the property wishes to build, within reason and as long as it works with the zoning laws that were in place when the property was bought. Personally, I would go NUTS living in a condo/high rise, maybe because I love to work on projects in my garage; I love to add on to my residence – neither of which work in the world of condos/high rise.
I don’t live in Richmond or even in Virginia – I do live very near a city that folks like you love to put up as a bit of a poster child for condos and high rises. We have light rail, which is HUGE waste of tax payer dollars – less than 3% of the population uses it but each year we get taxed more and more to keep it operating. We have trolleys, which are faddish, but again too slow, too infrequent, very underutilized and sucking up tax dollars like there is no tomorrow.
You show Vancouver BC and declare it pretty – maybe to you, but it’s a bit of an insult to my senses (no I don’t live in Vancouver). When you look into a situation, look at all sides – there maybe things that you like (evidently density) but the negative side is what it does to resident prices. How much of subsidy is offered (and/or continued) to get developers to build condos and high rises. If you have to offer subsidies then the ‘demand’ for such residences is artificial. Look at what it costs to build light rail as well as maintain it, versus the cost of buses and roads. Remember, roads move goods, services and people – light rail and trolleys only move people.
I can’t speak to Richmond but I can speak as one living in a place where many of the ‘progressive’ ideas have been shoved down our throats. If you talk to the city council and the developers things couldn’t be better. If you talk to some folks who have bought into the ideas, things are going great. If you talk to the average taxpayer you might find a LOT different picture.
Just my humble opinion – thanks for listening
January 12, 2008 at 9:32 am
Do other cities have issues like this? Or does development, or redevelopment come easy to them? Looking at pictures here of Vancouver, was it incredibly simple to develop that track of land or was there opposition similar to here in Richmond?
It would be ridiculous to assume that other cities have no problems with building, but it seems like we make it extra difficult here in Richmond. Almost as if we want to shoot ourselves in the foot.
Is cooperation lost here in Richmond, perhaps not, but it sure doesn’t come easy. I cannot tell you how great the renewal of Richmond is and will be. Looking at areas that were run down just ten years ago and are now alive and to the point of thriving is wonderful. The great thing about it is that this is so much more that can be done. I am really intrigued with the Manchester area and am curious why more development doesn’t come there (unless it is and I haven’t heard).
The other thing that astonished me was the other day when I stumbled upon the list of the top 100 metro areas in the nation….and Richmond Metro was 43rd….43rd!!! We’re larger than the Raleigh Metro Area and the Buffalo, NY metro area. I don’t know, that blew me away because I always thought of those places as more progressive areas in terms of development and building…not to mention that both areas have a professional sports team of some sort.
The point is….we’re a decently sized community and maybe we’re having growing pains…but my gosh, we sure do make growing more painful than it has to be.
February 15, 2008 at 10:51 am
One thing I would ask of anyone suggesting condo’s, etc along the downtown riverfront:
To whom will they be sold? It appears from the recent activity in places like Vistas, Rockett’s, etc that supply very much exceeds demand. also consider the “price-point” issue; this is not Vancouver nor is it Northern Va with loads of “dinks”, double-dippers, lobbyists, it is Richmond.
February 15, 2008 at 1:01 pm
Bud- I’m not suggesting condos, nor am I an expert in market research to determine what the demand is for condos. All I’m saying is I feel that a falsely dichotomous choice is being offered in this debate: either we have public access or we develop the riverfront. I’m simply pointing out that plenty of other places have balanced those 2 goals.