On Racism & the Charrette

The 1-way vs. 2-way streets debate is not the only controversy stirred up by the recent downtown design charrette. Perhaps the bigger controversy, the “elephant” in the discussion, if you will, is the divisive topic of race.

In a city that was home to the second largest slave-trading port in America 150 years ago, it is disheartening, but not terribly surprising, that many of our disagreements and debates in this city still center on race. Have we made progress? Absolutely. Do we still have problems? Without question.

One current problem is evidenced by the current debate regarding the legitimacy of any claims of racial exclusion or under-representation in the charrette process. A brief rundown of the significant players so far:

• The Free Press ran the headline “Sea of Whiteness” to accompany its article on the charrette.
• Mike Sarahan, a controversial city fixture, complained to city council & others about a lack of inclusion.
• Victor Dover, principal designer of the firm running the charrette process, apologized for the lack of inclusivity.
• Mayor Wilder defended the process: “Somebody’s done a lot of work,” he said, “and gotten a lot of people involved.”
• The president of the Jackson Ward Association felt the process was fair for Jackson Ward.
• Several bloggers have chimed in:
  • Buttermilk & Molasses acknowledges the failure and calls for everyone to move forward together. “If only others can learn to let go of what was in the past.”
  • Haduken.com acknowledges our city’s racist history and also expresses anger at the Free Press. Several comments reveal other Richmonders’ feelings.
  • River City Rapids reminds readers that the process isn’t over & there’s still time to get involved. He also provocatively suggests that “the race card is a joker” and has no place in this discussion.

The question that occurs to me as a Richmond culture watcher is, why are there such diverse and passionate feelings about this subject?

Were folks right to point out that the group who’s historically been marginalized was missing?

Were other folks right to say the process was/is open to all and therefore immune to a critique about who was missing at the table (racial group or otherwise)?

In my view, the fact that, by and large, African-Americans didn’t show up at the charrette tells us something about the state of our city.

It tells me that we still have miles to go in order to build a just and inclusive community.

It tells me that there are broken bonds of trust that take a lot of hard, intentional work to heal.

We spent roughly the first 300 years of our history trying in various ways to exclude the voice of Black folks. And yes, slavery is long gone, but its legacy lives on. It was only 30 years ago that Richmond’s city council was convicted by the Supreme Court for trying to annex as many white voters as they could to maintain a white majority.

Folks who’ve lived through that, and raised children in that atmosphere, in my mind have every right to be mistrustful of any political process. The book Why are all the Black kids sitting together in the cafeteria: a psychologist explains the development of racial identity suggests that one reaction to encounters with racism and prejudice is to seek a group of folks who share and understand your experience of marginalization.

Perhaps in a city that’s experienced so much racism and prejudice folks can’t be blamed for lacking interest in public forums run by unknown leaders (Dover & Kohl), without folks they know and trust buying into the process and urging them to get involved.

That doesn’t mean that Dover Kohl or Venture Richmond are racists.

That doesn’t mean that the results of the charrette are worthless.

But it means to me that we have work to do to heal the many wounds inflicted by years of racism. We need to build multi-racial coalitions for the improvement of our common future as a community.

And I think it’s time we recognize the concerns of an historically oppressed group when they claim that their absence is significant and unfortunate. Recognizing the legitimacy of that claim does not automatically impute racist intentions to the organizers or promoters of the event, but rather is a sign that we still have work to do to heal the wounds of history.

Perhaps those of us who are engaged should ask for meetings with Black leaders and inquire as to why they weren’t present – without laying blame- and what could be done in the future to ensure greater participation from the African-American community.

Perhaps we should ask our Black friends why they didn’t participate, if they did not.

Perhaps we should ask all our friends who didn’t participate why they did not. Most of my White friends had absolutely no interest; it was a minority of any of my friends, regardless of their race, who a) knew about it and b) cared. I guess I say that to warn against “tokenizing” our Black friends and excoriating them for not representing their race.

Let’s use this controversy as a point of learning about the health of our community. Let it make us stronger, not continue to divide us.

One of the positive realities I noticed is that, without exception, everyone who’s publicly commented on this controversy has expressed the desire for racial inclusion.   That’s certainly progress.  Now let’s talk about how to make it happen.

I’d like to see more dialogue about the legacy of racism in our community, how it affects us and how to overcome it. Race and racism are very much live issues- as seen not only from this issue, but elsewhere in our city, as recently in the comments section of one of our local ‘hoodblogs.

And for the record, I too am annoyed with the Free Press for criticizing without having promoted the event. That’s inexcusable- as long as they’d received a press release, which I hope they did.

I expect my opinion might be controversial – it’s with a certain fear and trembling that I click on the “publish” button, but I nevertheless welcome comments and discussion. I’d simply ask that it you choose to comment, please keep things as civil as possible while discussing this divisive and difficult topic.

 

One-Way vs. Two-Way Streets: Let the Debate Begin

The recent design charrette has provided a little controversy for our city and for engaged bloggers. Should downtown convert its street grid from one-way to two-way streets? Divergent views are already emerging.

Explaining and defending the charrette’s recommendation of a two-way street conversion downtown is Buttermilk & Molasses. John’s post “THE DOWNTOWN PLAN: ONE-WAY OR ANOTHER” ably presents the controversy and advocates for the conversion.

Representing concern over this proposed change is the Richmond Business & Commercial News blog in the post “Ending One-Way Streets in Richmond?” A local traffic engineer, Bear, joins the debate in the comments section with data and sound logic advocating for the status-quo.

The controversy has also made its way to Richmond City Watch’s forum, an on-line forum for all things Richmond, with a focus on architecture & urban planning.
Check out Bear’s posts here (covering similar ground) and the many responses in the forum’s Downtown Charrette discussion.

I’ve spent the afternoon researching the claims each side is making and trying to determine if there is a clear case to be made for either side. Most arguments on both sides of the local debate center on making downtown a safer and more inviting environment for non-motorists, a goal almost universally shared.

My view: there is no obvious choice here.

The smoking gun for my ambivalence is the Federal Highway Administration’s Pedestrian Safety Report on “One-Way/Two-Way Street Conversions,” which concludes that compelling reasons exist for both types of streets from a pedestrian safety perspective.

Reasons for converting to 2-way streets:

• Slower traffic speeds.
• Decrease “Vehicle Miles Traveled” by eliminating indirect routes (driving around the block to get to your destination).
• Increased access to businesses.
• Possibly: safer for pedestrians.

Reasons for maintaining 1-way streets:

• Conversion is very costly.
• 1- way streets allow for more cars, thereby decreasing congestion.
• Easier than 2-way streets to time stoplights (timed lights improve traffic flow and decrease idling (& therefore pollution)).
• Fewer turn prohibitions.
• More on-street parking.
• Possibly: safer for pedestrians.

A note of clarification: turns are often prohibited on heavily traveled 2-way streets to maintain traffic flow (think Hull St. in Manchester, or Boulevard during rush hour). On-street parking is sometimes lost as the extra lane used for parking is reclaimed for travel purposes. And both sides in this debate argue that their choice is the safest for pedestrians.

Unfortunately, most of the information I found about the pros and cons of converting streets was written by highly partisan organizations which were promoting ideological arguments for or against automobile-oriented development. These studies were less academic in nature and more akin to propaganda. I searched academic databases, government sites, and google. At any rate, here’s a rundown of studies I found helpful.

One of the better studies was published by the Transportation Research Board, “Downtown Streets: Are We Strangling Ourselves on One-Way Networks?” which advocates for 2-way streets. “This paper provides a comparison of one-way versus two-way street systems for downtowns and presents an evaluation methodology for considering two-way conversion.”

The study discusses Bear’s comment on the Business & Commercial News blog that “One-way streets eliminate conflict points” and argues the opposite. The heart of the issue is, in my own blunt rewording, from how many directions can pedestrians be hit? Bear and others argue that 1-way streets provide fewer “conflict points,” while the Transportation Research Board argues that 1-way street networks provide many more possible types of street intersections. Examples include a 1-way street intersecting with another 1-way street, a 1-way street intersecting with a 2-way street, and a 1-way street which becomes 2-way at an intersection (think Main & Cary sts. where they convert to 2-way). 1-way street networks increase the variety and kind of conflict points creating more confusion for pedestrians and motorists.

The highly technical article “A MICROSCOPIC SIMULATION STUDY OF TWO-WAY STREET NETWORK VERSUS ONE-WAY STREET NETWORK” argues that, “one of the inherent disadvantages with one-way street is that they force additional turning movements at the intersections caused by motorists who must travel “out-of-direction” to reach their destination. The additional turning movements for a one-way street network increase the occurrences of vehicular-pedestrian conflicts at any given intersection, and also result in a system-wide increase in vehicle mile of travel (VMT) as compared to a two-way street network.”

In other words, you have to turn more on a 1-way street network, and therefore have more chances of running over people.

I found both of these sources on Streetsblog.org, a NYC-focused blog with a helpful article arguing against converting streets to one-way in Brooklyn.

On the other side of the debate is the Center for the American Dream of Mobility and Homeownership’s paper “No Two Ways About It: One-Way Streets are better than Two-Way.” The most convincing evidence produced in this paper is that pedestrians were hit more frequently after streets were converted to 2-way in several downtowns in the US. I’d prefer to cite those studies directly rather than this obviously partisan article, but I could not track them down on-line. The references in this article contain a lot of garbage (highly ideological publications, newspapers, and studies more than 50 years old), but the empirical evidence cited about the number of accidents resulting from recent 2-way conversions is convincing.

I am personally biased towards 2-way streets. They put less emphasis on moving as many cars as possible, they slow traffic, and provide a more inviting atmosphere for pedestrians. However, I’m not sure that compelling enough evidence exists for their benefits in a downtown region to justify the expense required to do a full-scale conversion.

What I’d like to see is more empirical evidence for the claims of both sides, focusing on the many regions which have recently switched their downtown street networks. Denver, Raleigh, and Cambridge, MA, among many others, have recently done this. What’s their experience been? Has downtown experienced a resurgence? Have their been fewer or more pedestrian accidents?

The issue of pedestrian accidents is a salient one for Richmond. We have the dubious distinction of placing 2nd in large Metro areas with worsening pedestrian safety (Orlando’s number 1).

Richmond-Petersburg, VA MSA in 1994-95 scored a 41.4 on the “pedestrian danger index” and a 70.5 in 2002-03.

The danger index is a measure of the average yearly pedestrian fatalities per capita, adjusted for the number of walkers. In other words, a lot more people are getting run over by cars.

Of course, I doubt many of those accidents occurred downtown, likely they’re in Midlothian and Short Pump. But it seems like a discussion of improving pedestrian safety, downtown and around the rest of the metro area, is timely.

 

Charrette link round-up

I’ve been out of town and missed the beginning of the downtown master plan charrette. So I’ve been combing through the archives of RVA blogs looking for blog posts to fill me in on what I’ve missed. Here’s what I found:

The man spearheading the blogger reporting effort on this process, is, of course, John Sarvay at Buttermilk & Molasses.
Read his extensive reports & analysis here, or his guest column in the TD here.

Daniel Farrell has reports and video of Day 1 & Day 2.

Ross Catrow reports on some specific ideas from the charrette.

And the TD’s columnist-blogger, Bart Hinkle, weighs in with his own commentary.  He includes an interesting letter from long-time Richmond agitator Mike Sarahan, who annoys many (read the comments on Hinkle’s blog) but makes a good point about the lack of racial diversity at the charrette.

Or for that brand of humor only SaveRichmond.com can deliver, take the “EZ 2 LOVE THE DOWNTOWN PLAN Quiz.”

The TD’s only news story so far (that I could find).

And finally, the home page of the design firm in charge, Dover, Kohl & Partners, who’ve yet to add anything about their current Richmond project, but who will hopefully do so soon.

I’ll add more commentary on all of these reports as soon as I’ve had time to catch up on my post-vacation stack of work and actually digest all the information out there.

Forgive me if I’ve missed any blogs out there covering this event, and add a link in the comments section.

 

Richmond transit stays in the news

Richmond.com is reporting that City Council’s Finance Committee recently killed off the proposed downtown circulator- in part because businesses wouldn’t pay for it.

I’m glad that Richmond.com is tracking this story, as I’m not an avid city council watcher and hadn’t heard what happened to this proposal. It’s odd, however, that they’re posting this story today, June 12, when the vote was two months ago- March 16 (and calling it a “recent” vote). I searched the TD and discovered they had published a story about this same vote back in March.  The article is not available on their webpage.

The TD article interviewed some business owners who tell why they don’t support the circulator as proposed. The original proposal included two routes which covered much of downtown. City council voted to kill one route and only support the eastern half- from the convention center to Shockoe. The reaction of business owners was negative:

“What the circulator does is make our downtown whole,” said Michael Byrne, president of the Historic Shockoe Partnership and owner of Richbrau Brewing Co. in Shockoe Slip. “Doing half of it is doing half of nothing.”

Other businesses, however, said the circulator is a service that should extend beyond downtown to include thriving retail areas such as Carytown and the Fan District, as well as an increasingly vibrant restaurant and gallery strip along Broad Street.

“I say do this once and do it right,” said Charles Diradour, whose business leases buildings to well-established restaurants and night spots in the Fan and other neighborhoods west of Belvidere Street. “Let’s not do it piecemeal. If we’re going to be one city, let’s act like one city.”

The piecemeal approach, however, is exactly what one councilperson wanted: “‘I want to get into the circulator business, but I want to get into it slowly,’ said 4th District Councilwoman Kathy C. Graziano, chairwoman of the [Land Use, Housing and Transportation] committee.” – TD 2/21/07

And herein lies a huge problem with public transportation planning- (some) politicians want to phase things in, spend as little as possible until they’re guaranteed financial success. The public, however, will only use public transit when it’s convenient and comfortable- which costs a lot of money upfront to achieve.

You can’t run a bus once an hour and see if it’s popular before increasing service. People won’t ride the bus precisely because it only runs once an hour. And people won’t ride a bus with an imperfect route- they’ll only ride the bus when it stops near their origin and destination without too much meandering in the middle. And achieving those goals costs money.

It’s also fairly well-known that bus lines don’t garner much support from the business community: they’re not permanent and can be axed by any politician or bureaucrat. Trains or light rail, however, usually gain more business support and spur more investment because they’re on a fixed route and likely won’t be voted out of existence. See this article for more on the economic benefits of rail:
Rail Transit In America — A Comprehensive Evaluation of Benefits

Regarding a circulator bus for Richmond- it sounds like local businesses would support it if the city commits to doing it well- a sensible and comprehensive route with frequent service.  My money says they’ll support a bus if they’re guaranteed their investment will not be spent towards another failed, city-backed economic development scheme which the city backs out of when it doesn’t create immediate magic downtown.

The circulator concept is not dead, however, as Council President Pantele is very much a supporter. In fact, his ideas are the best I’ve heard so far- he’s publicly advocated for frequent service connecting Carytown to Church Hill, and even floated the idea of a trolley. Richmond.com outlines his hopes:

Pantele’s plan calls for two bidirectional loops, one running from the Bottom to Harrison Street, the other from Harrison Street to Boulevard, with 10-minute service. Although Pantele said the city is not obligated to go through GRTC to create such a transit loop, it would be logical to restructure GRTC’s current route system so that the circulator would serve as a hub for all other routes in the city. Clean lines and frequent service would make the circulator convenient and easy enough for anyone to use.

Imagine taking the bus from Carytown to Church Hill and not needing to consult a schedule or complictaed route map! Let’s hope these plans and those of GRTC CEO John Lewis will mesh to provide reliable, frequent, & affordable transit options not only to suburban locations, but also within the city itself.

 

Good Idea #1: Hide your highways

So as promised, albeit after a long delay, I’m starting what I hope will be a regular feature of this blog: highlighting good ideas for cities.

To kick things off, I’m taking the suggestion of a reader who brought to my attention an idea from Columbus, OH.

Ohio DOT wanted to widen I-670, so in one location, the decision was made to hide the highway by building retail shops along the bridge. Here’s a picture:

And a view from street level, where you really can’t tell it’s a highway overpass at all:

This is a great idea, because instead of allowing the highway to divide neighborhoods and destroy them for the sake of the automobile, this development allows neighborhoods to remain pedestrian friendly and maintains a connection between both sides of the highway (at least in this one space).

According to the Columbus City Council webpage, they’re considering highway “caps,” as they’re known, all over the city. Check out these links, which show pictures of 4 different highway overpasses and proposals to cap them with buildings or parks (be sure to click on the “next” link). It’s really an amazing transformation they’re proposing:

http://assets.columbus.gov/Council/initiative/caps/spring/1.htm
http://assets.columbus.gov/Council/initiative/caps/broad/1.htm
http://assets.columbus.gov/Council/initiative/caps/third/1.htm
http://assets.columbus.gov/Council/initiative/caps/high/1.htm

Of course, Columbus is not the only city to hide its highways- Boston’s Big Dig is the most infamous of all attempts to reclaim urban space from the ravages of the interstate highway system. But other cities are getting in the game as well:

Dallas, TX wants to connect it’s arts district and Uptown neighborhoods with a 3 block-long park:

Trenton, NJ created a 6.5 acre park over US 29 which sparked reinvestment in neighboring areas. A view from “street level”:

Other cities with caps include Seattle (I-5), San Diego, Duluth (I-35), and Phoenix (I-10).

Of course, Richmond has 2 caps already, the RMA parking garage and Kanawha Plaza. While over a highway is one of the best places to put parking, as it uses otherwise wasted urban space, Kanawha Plaza is closer in concept to these other developments because it serves to connect both sides of the Downtown Expressway.

Kanawha, however, is much smaller in scale than these newer caps. And it’s also flanked by busy streets on both sides, which diminishes its ability to actually connect the two sides of the expressway as it’s not pleasant to walk there.

So Good Idea #1: hide the highways by capping them and reconnecting divided neighborhoods. Where could this work in Richmond? Perhaps in Oregon Hill? Maybe a retail cap along S. Meadow St. near the near the new lofts? What do you think?

When I used to live near the expressway in Carytown I dreamed of a green-space cap that would cover the entire expressway as a bike and walking path to downtown as well as heal the ugly scar in the neighborhood and deaden the incessant noise. Now that I see so many other cities getting into this game, perhaps it wasn’t such a far-fetched dream after all…

And please, send me some good ideas you’ve seen in other cities or have dreamed up yourself.   Let’s think big for Richmond. Send ideas here: ambivalentrichmonder [at] yahoo.com

 

New development for downtown Broad St.

Could this be downtown Broad St’s future?:

7th St. NW, Washington D.C.
Photo by Kmf164, used with permission.

It could be if DC developer Douglas Jemal has his way. Jemal bought the Central National Bank building at 2nd & Broad:

And he bought the old United Way building just across the street. According to today’s TD, he wants to buy the whole block, with hopes to redevelop it.

7th St. in DC (pictured above) was Jemal’s project and also his model for what he wants to do in Richmond. From the TD:

“When we look at Broad Street, that’s exactly what we see — Seventh Street in Washington,” Blake C. Esherick, a director for Douglas Development, said yesterday in a telephone interview….

Jemal’s company is negotiating to purchase 120 E. Broad, 122 E. Broad, 200 E. Broad and 201 E. Broad…

Esherick said Douglas Development wants to refurbish the storefronts along Broad to their original state and attract high-end retail and restaurants for the street-level businesses and mixed uses for the upper floors.

“The goal is to do a redevelopment plan that puts those buildings back to how they looked when they were built,” Esherick said. “We want to create some vibrancy, create some great street-front retail.”

And here’s more on the 7th St. project in DC from Jemal’s company, Douglas Development Corp.:

Historic 7th Street was once the exuberant commercial center of Washington, DC. Douglas Development has brought life back to 7th Street while preserving the beauty of the nineteenth century architecture. The success story continues with a redeveloped Historic 7th Street that provides quality retail, restaurant, and office space. Current tenants include Legal Sea Foods, Ruby Tuesday, Radio Shack, Fuddrucker’s, Greenpeace, Away.com, NovaCare, Washington Sports, National Criminal Justice Association, Marvelous Market and the headquarters of Douglas Development Corporation.

Mixed Use Project:

• Eight small-scale commercial buildings originally constructed between 1866 and 1881
• All buildings located within the Downtown Historic District
• Project awarded the 2004 The Washington Chapter of the American Institute of Architects, Merit Award under Architecture Historic Resources category

Of course, it’s been over 2 years since they bought the bank building, so as always with these projects don’t expect dramatic change anytime soon.   But hopefully, one day, maybe, downtown Broad east of Belvidere will again bustle with activity.

 

BlackFinn Restaurant & Saloon will open soon

BlackFinn, a restaurant slated to open soon at Riverside on the James, had a tent set up last night at Friday Cheers.  They promised a June 15th opening date.

They advertise themselves as an Irish saloon (and here I always thought of saloon’s as part of the “wild west” of America and pubs as Irish- shows you what I know.)  BlackFinn started in NYC, and Richmond will be their 10th location, 2nd in VA (Norfolk’s the other).

The list of groups who’ve booked events at the saloon should give you a sense of its character: the Junior League, Young Republicans, the Richmond Bar Association, and Parrotheads (I’m assuming the Jimmy Buffet fan-type of parrothead, I’d be delighted if I were wrong.)

Oh and they’ve got a website now too, complete with menu & prices:
http://www.blackfinnrichmond.com/home.html

While it doesn’t really look like my scene, I’m glad to see more life coming to the canal walk.

 

CenterStage Groundbreaking Report & Discussion

The Times-Dispatch reports on the CenterStage groundbreaking (which I skipped to see Soulive at Friday Cheers) today, complete with quotes from a business owner who’s switched from opposing the arts center to supporting it. Either no critics were present, or none were interviewed for this article.

In either case, the most articulate criticism of the arts center, including the most recent developments such as Wilder’s volunteer board appointments, is still available over at Saverichmond.com.

Someone recently questioned why I hold onto my reservations about this project, especially considering my interest in celebrating Richmond’s new developments. I do want Richmond to become more “urban,” and I don’t on principle oppose a performing arts center which hosts diverse arts groups and helps reinvigorate downtown. But I’m sick and tired of the behind-closed-doors development deals, the continual shunning of public input, and the wasting of public money on projects that haven’t been rigorously scrutinized. Just take a look at the VAPAF board Wilder just put together to oversee both development and operations. Then try to make the case that things have changed in Richmond from the days of 6th St. Marketplace:

• Thomas F. Farrell II, chairman, president and chief executive officer of Dominion
• Jean Boone, vice president, Richmond Free Press
• Theodore L. Chandler Jr., chairman and chief executive officer, LandAmerica Financial Group
• Joseph C. Farrell, retired chairman and chief operating officer, The Pittston Company
• Michael D. Fraizer, chairman and chief executive officer, Genworth Financial
• William H. Goodwin Jr., president, CCA Industries Inc.
• Robert J. Grey Jr., partner, Hunton & Williams
• Eva Teig Hardy, executive vice president, Dominion
• C.T. Hill, chairman, president and chief executive officer, SunTrust Bank Mid-Atlantic
• Susan Holsworth, research librarian, Afton Chemical Corporation
• John A. Luke Jr., chairman and chief executive officer, MeadWestvaco
• Marvette Monroe, assistant vice-president, First Market Bank
• Michael E. Szymanczyk, chairman and chief executive officer, Philip Morris USA
• Richard E. Toscan, dean, School of Arts, Virginia Commonwealth University
• James E. Ukrop, chairman, First Market Bank

14 out of 15 are corporate; no non-profits are represented and only one has any professional art connection. Color me not impressed.

I sincerely hope that my misgivings are misplaced.

***Update: So a friend who’s experienced in the non-profit world has told me that in non-profit governance, you actually want almost exclusive representation from corporate leaders.  The theory is they’ll make sure that the program folks, who’re actually running the show, have someone with business sense to make sure their “hearts” don’t get ahead of their pocket-books.  In other words, corporate types theoretically make sure that the money they and others are donating to the organization is well managed and spent wisely.  The program folks, in this instance the arts community, should have oversight of the activities of the non-profit.

So maybe my criticism is misplaced here after all when I bashed Wilder for appointing only corporate types to the board.  HOWEVER, I’m still concerned that the previous board was all too happy to spend other people’s money without the type of financial oversight and business scrutiny they’re ostensibly there to provide, and I’ve seen no assurance that this board  will be different.  In fact, that would have been the newsworthy bit- not the names so much as the new philosophy that would guarantee that Wilder and other (former) critics’ questions had been addressed.

Other lingering questions:

• Boards are supposed to be made up of people financially invested in the project/non-profit they’re overseeing.  How much has this board given of their own money to this project? I don’t know.
• How many of these folks are recycled from the previous board?  (I can’t find the previous list, as the old website has been taken down).
• What assurance do we have that the new board will solicit meaningful input from the arts community in the actual operation of the performing arts center?

All input, discussion, and debate on this issue is encouraged.  I’m no expert in issues pertaining to the arts or non-profit management, and I hope I’ve displayed here publicly a willingness to admit when I’m wrong.  So you’re here asked and invited to add your commentary, questions, rants, or whatever!

 

New Coffee Shop

So I happened upon a 6-week-old coffee shop this morning on Broad near Laurel St. (just west of Belvidere) called “Common Groundz.” They have a myspace profile, but no webpage.

They’re serving Bev’s Ice Cream, Zuppa soup & sandwiches, and in the fall will add Bottom’s Up Pizza to the menu. And their coffee’s fair trade.

Plus they’re hosting local music & poetry shows- 13 scheduled so far in June (schedule is available at their myspace profile).

Their support of local restaurants & artists makes them a great addition to the Richmond community. In their own words: “We promote Local Artists, Local Music, and Local Food in an effort to enrich our own community’s varied gifts and talents into this city and this place.”

And the owners have a story too:

[T]he owners of Common Groundz are persons in recovery from drug and alcohol addiction. We are proud to say this in an attempt to dispel the belief that once an addict, always an addict. We are living examples of change and progress. We do become responsible, productive members of society. We welcome those of you in our community who choose to fellowship with those of us in recovery.

I hope the shop succeeds!

 

Downtown Developments

Downtown developments are highlighted in today’s TD – on the front page of the metro section and front and center on their webpage. For those of us who track these things, there’s no new information here- but the articles do provide a nice summary of major projects in Richmond.

Projects highlighted:

• Philip Morris Research & Technology Center
• Rocketts Landing
• VCU’s Critical Care Hospital
• Federal Courthouse

The best part is a nice slideshow of aerial photos of these developments, plus shots of the newly renovated Capitol and RIC airport.

I can’t figure out why they called their article “Downtown developments” then highlighted Rocketts, which straddles the Richmond-Henrico border (& all the new buildings so far are in Henrico).  But then, I guess I’m being too critical.  Henrico Co., downtown, what’s the difference?