Melissa Savenko's Richmond Real Estate Review

Architectural Visualization - A New Way to "Vision?"

Richmond has recently been host to numerous charettes, and planning sessions, and master planning sessions, and major development debates, including several that continue, such as Echo Harbor, a baseball stadium in Shockoe Bottom, VCU expansion, etc. 

What if people could really SEE what the result of development could be?

What if you could create a 3D image of what a developed space would look like, and how it would interact with the existing landscape? 

What if you could create a "photo-realistic" view of Shockoe Bottom's development, and you could explore options, like the possible interactions of a GRTC bus transit terminal, and a Slave Trail Heritage site, and a baseball stadium?

What if you could provide an image of what a City block would look like WITHOUT an existing building, and you could "add" or "subtract" buildings with a few mouse clicks, virtually "playing" with a range of development options?

Actually, you can.  The technology exists now.  It's called "architectural visualization," or "photo-realistic rendering," and it's amazing stuff.

Right now, it seems to be used mainly by architects and developers, when they are trying to develop a more comprehensive and detailed view of how an architectural design, which is created in two dimensional space, would look in THREE dimensional space.

OK.  That may have sounded like gobblety gook.  Let's use an example that most people understand.  Video games.  Or movies that have a heavy 3D animation component, like the "Lord of the Rings" trilogy. 

In the video game context, game creators develop a "virtual world," that in many games is surprisingly real-looking and real-feeling.  In movies, it's the same concept and technology.  "Live" actors act in front of a blue screen, and the rest of the film is created out of whole cloth, using computer-generated imagery, or "CGI" for short.

Well, an architectural  visualization firm can do the exact same thing, and actually uses much of the same technology developed and used by the gaming and movie industry.  They call themselves "3D artists."  Their work place is a "studio," which is so much cooler than an "office," BTW.  But they use the technology and their artistic talents to develop 3D images of BUILDINGS.

And we have such a firm right here in town, ProViz.  Here's the website.  Here's a recent article on them in the Spring 2009 Creative Workspace Magazine, found on Page 3.  You can look at their demo reel (accessible on the left side, bottom of their homepage) and see the amazing stuff they have done, including renderings for the Rice House, and Miller & Rhoads, and Movieland at Boulevard Square.  Let's just use the Miller & Rhoads project on Broad Street as an example  These virtual images of Miller & Rhoads are what they imagined that project to look like, BEFORE it was built.  In fact, the nighttime image includes a photographic component, and the entire rest of the image was created using just technology and artistic skills. Now, compare the 3D "imagination" with a virtual tour of what Miller & Rhoads ACTUALLY looks like now.  Pretty amazing stuff.

This post could get lengthy, so I just wanted to introduce "architectural visualization" as a concept.  Next time, I'd like to discuss the broader based applications of architectural visualization in two areas where they could have great impact, and are (IMHO) currently underutilized: (i) "virtual restoration" of historic properties; and (ii) major community development projects, like the baseball stadium in Shockoe Bottom. 

[DISCLAIMER:   A very dear friend is the Director of ProViz.  This post could be seen as a blatant attempt to drum up business for him.  Trust me, he's doing plenty fine on his own. But if that's a consequence of this post, more business to him, I think that is great.  He and his guys, Jon and David, need to be recognized for their talent. 

But the major motivator for this post is because, before I met him, I wasn't aware of the possibilities inherent in architectural visualization.  Heck, if you had asked me what "architectural visualization" WAS I would have looked at you blankly.  But because of our association, I do understand what architectural visualization is now, and I think it has amazing potential - for development, for urban planning, for fund raising - you name it.]

So take a look-see.  This stuff gives real meaning to the phrase, "a picture is worth a 1,000 words."

MORE Baseball: Shockoe Center Financial Feasibility Report Is Released

The preliminary report on the financial feasibility of the Shockoe Center development has been released.  Now people can read for themselves the experts' analysis of the financial projections.  Here's the front page newspaper article on the subject. 

The big "reveal":  The consultants say the project is "highly unlikely" without City of Richmond credit support for the bonds that must be issued to finance the project.  This is a sea-change from what the developers HAD been saying, which is that the project could be done without City money or City debt obligation.

I suspect the "against" crowd will jump on this financing change like a duck on a june bug.  I still haven't made up my mind where I come down on the project, period.  I still have significant concerns about the impact this development would have on the invaluable and irreplaceable historic resources in the area.  I agree with a recent commenter to one of my other posts that the conceptual architecture is bland and not worthy of a gateway area of our City.  I, for one, don't want some cr*ppy "new urbanism" development with cheap chain restaurants and lame retail.

The devil is ALWAYS in the details.  But I DO commend Mayor Jones for his measured response to the report.  Let's use it to really re-focus on what I think is the MAJOR issue, the issue that gets lost in the heated discussion about baseball, whether, if and where:

What is ultimately best for the entire City of Richmond and its citizens?  How do we make sure we do this right the first time?  There are no second chances with historic areas.  Let's make sure any decisions we, the community, advocate, are reasoned, rational, and based on accurate information.  Referendum, anyone?

First Time Home Buyers - Why Are You Waiting?

I am a little bit flummoxed.  Right now, housing affordability is the best it's EVER been, since the National Association of Realtors has been tracking the statistics.  Interest rates are at record lows, under 5% in many instances.  The Federal Government is still making 3.5% down payments, under 5% interest rate financing available to buyers through its FHA program.  AND there is a federal first time home buyer credit available of $8,000, which means eligible individuals or couples filing jointly will get an $8,000 credit on their 2009 tax return.  That is essentially $8,000 in free money back from the government, just for doing what we're all told is the American dream, buying a first home.

So why aren't first time home buyers out there in droves?  Or why aren't the ones that are out there BUYING, rather than just lolly-gagging around and looking?

I don't know the answer.  I really AM flummoxed.  I welcome any feedback from you fence-sitting buyers, or other real estate professionals.  The only thing I can come up with:  buyer psychology.  That d*mn national media has been talking for so long about the sky falling, it's become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

My advice, if you are a first time home buyer that's been taking his or her or your collective sweet time:  Get off the fence NOW.  It's the Spring market.  Inventory isn't going to get better.  There is no guarantee the interest rates will stay at these record lows.  And the $8,000 tax credit expires on December 1, 2009.  That means you have to have closed on the sale by no later than November 30, 2009 to get that free $8,000 government handout.  And trust me, the way loan officers are swamped right now, with refinancing and sales, don't think you can write an offer September 30 and be closed on time.  Oh no.  I think loan officer volumes are going to get even heavier as people realize time is running out, rush to get closed, and that December 1, 2009 deadline looms nearer.

Don't miss the boat and be kicking yourself December 2,  If you're going to buy anyway, why not buy now?

Windsor Court Condominium Website NOW AVAILABLE!

Woo hoo!  The website for Windsor Court Condominiums, located at 1608-1614 Grove Avenue in the heart of Richmond's Historic Fan District, is UP!  AND, I think it looks great!  Thanks Sean Deane and the folks at Meridian Tech!

Check it out for yourself, http://www.windsorcourtcondominiums.com/, and let us know if you have any comments or feedback, even constructive criticism.  And stop by any Sunday  between 1:00 and 4:00 p.m. to check out the three different model units.  As always, if you need help buying or selling real estate, give me a call, I'm your girl! 

Baseball Downtown - Richmond Bizsense Re-Frames the Question

Here's a post that was written yesterday by Aaron Kremer, Editor of Richmond Bizsense, in advance of the Richmond Times-Dispatch public forum on baseball in Shockoe Bottom.  He makes an interesting point about the current debate over baseball.  He says:

"[T]he real debate should address one central issue: If professional baseball is not a viable business without some government assistance (land, help with bonds...whatever), what price would be reasonable for taxpayers to support such a quality of life improvement?"

I think that's a good question.  Do we as taxpayers WANT to support this subsidized quality of life improvement, or should we spend our money elsewhere?  Unfortunately, it seems the debate starts from the place that we MUST have minor league baseball and the issue becomes the where, not the whether.

Mr. Kremer ends his post by calling for a special referendum of City residents on the issue.  More and more, that approach makes sense to me.

Baseball in the Bottom: "Live" Blogging from the Richmond Times-Dispatch Public Square

OK, there are a million and one things I SHOULD be doing, and at least 990,000 I'd rather be doing right now.  But I just got back from the Richmond Times-Dispatch Public Forum on baseball in Shockoe Bottom, and if I don't post this now, Lord knows when I'll get to it.

So, without further ado, here are my "live" notes from the Forum.  I've cleaned up typos and tried to reconstruct the thought when my notes were particularly difficult to read.  Anything located in [brackets] is a note from me.  Any all caps or certain comments were part of my real-time blogging and have been included as is.  NOTE:  I was doing it on my Blackberry with four fingers, so I ask for a little forgiveness here on form.

Players: 

FOR:  Paul Kreckman ("PK"), Highwoods Development; Brian Bostic ("BB"), Richmond Baseball Club LC

AGAINST:  Charlie Diradour ("CD"), Lion's Paw Development, LLC; Jean Wright ("JW"), Lawyer and Historic Preservation Advocate

Moderator:  Paul Silvestri, Editor-in-Chief, Richmond Times-Dispatch

Silvestri:  Welcome to the 24th Public Square. Opportunity for a community conversation.  Civil.  Topic is "Shockoe Bottom Is the Best Place for Baseball: Yes or No."

Attendees I noticed in the audience:  Bill Pantele, Former 2nd District City Councilman; Bruce Tyler, 1st District City Councilman; Marty Jewell, 5th District City Councilman; Jon Lugbill, Director, Sports Backers; Mayor Dwight Jones; Joe Morrissey, Delegate

Event will be streamed live on the Richmond Times-Dispatch website, available tomorrow.

Silvestri asks why people in the audience are here. Someone says: "Worst idea since the Edsel."  Giggles.  Others say people are interested in the City, concerned about expense, want it to be a "good decision."  "Want it to be something that WORKS."

YES:  Paul Kreckman

City needs to grow tax base, Shockoe Bottom has underused, under-performing assets. "Generational opportunity" to expand tax base.  Project needs to be of "significant scale."  This project (i) addresses flood plain; (ii) deals with heritage opportunities; (iii) minimizes cost to City.

Opportunity for adjoining private development + ballpark.

Minor league attendance sets records.

Ten Principles for Development of Minor League Ballpark:

1. Plan for "right" capacity;
2. Locate contiguous to promising development;
3. Take advantage of land [think I missed something here];
4. Oriented to transportation;
5. Respect street grid;
6. Allow fan circulation around the ballpark;
7. Orient to connect other areas of significant development;
8. Parking lots off site;
9. Master plan for additional development; and
10. Plan to maximize attendance and revenue generating potential.

This plan meets all ten principles.

NO:  Charlie Diradour

Project needs thorough public debate.  He is pro-baseball.

Premise of baseball as an economic driver CANNOT be substantiated.  Davenport [think this is the consultant's report from September 2008] concluded that 66,000 square feet of retail was maximum could sustain, now proposing 200,000 square feet

Broad Street CDA didn't pay off bonds, tax revenue from parking didn't cover payments.  Now City of Richmond paying Broad Street CDA. 

For stadium, will have to pay for infrastructure, stormwater [runoff?]  and traffic - "Ain't nothing free."

Recalls statement of Mayor Jones when he was running for mayor, said Richmond should be developed "by design, and not by default."  CD: "This project has default written all over it."

YES:  Brian Bostic

Richmond is the second largest City, after Orlando, without a major or minor league ball club.  $30M to renovate the Diamond.  Frank Ricks, architect and ballpark designer, concluded the Bottom was the "best location [he'd] ever seen in America."

Atalanta Braves proposed Bottom baseball stadium plan.  Dissent in the community.  Crupi Report said Boulevard should be redeveloped for commercial purposes.  Boulevard RFPs did not include baseball [NOTE:  Is that true?  Thought they did initially until Wilder told them to take it out.  Remember that period of time when he was all about the Fulton Gas Works as a baseball stadium site?]

Staubach Co., another sports consultant, agreed Downtown was the best site for baseball.  Now consultants said should be Downtown, Highwoods willing to invest in ancillary development.

NO baseball on Boulevard.

Need family anchor to "lure families Downtown," baseball = answer.  [NOTE:  What about heritage tourism and the river?]

NO:  Jean Wright

Bottom has such promise.  Mass transportation.  Visible gateway.  Heritage tourism.

Inner city but also a village.  "Community only becomes stronger if respected as such."  7th District is not disposable.

Talking about bond issues and astronomical amount to finance engineers, architects, etc.  Ball team ownership is private, not public. 

"Not Bottom, but the top."  Looks bad now, but will develop.  Gateway.  New Master Plan.  Unique heritage. 

Community is being treated as expendable.  Why not proposing new ballpark on the James behind Windsor Farms? 

REBUTTAL:  YES: Paul Kreckman

Lives in Fan, Boulevard area, neighborhoods not oversupplied by retail.  Redeveloping Boulevard would mean more convenient places to work and shop.  [NOTE:  Who wants Disneyfied retail?  Not I, said the cat!]

Makes development possible by "solving the flood plain issue."  [NOTE:  Would someone PLEASE explain what the heck that means, in plain English?]

REBUTTAL:  NO: Charlie Diradour

"Organic development is what makes a City great."

If works, why need bonds?

Already have organic development in the City - see Bowtie Partners' development of Boulevard Square, Movieland. [NOTE:  My friend did all the visualization, you should see the awesome virtual images that were done BEFORE the theater was ever built!  Shameless plug now over.]

Issue about baseball in RFPs for Boulevard - not true never included.  Opening Day Partners had a concept, GREAT idea.

Boulevard is heart of the City. 

Shockoe Bottom - Opportunity to explore national heritage, organically built neighborhood.

REBUTTAL: YES: Brian Bostic

Unlock 65 acres of land for development by removing Diamond [NOTE:  Talking about redeveloping Boulevard].

"Family friendly venue in most family-friendly location, Downtown."

REBUTTAL: NO:  Jean Wright

Asking the wrong question.  Question should be:  What's the best thing for Shockoe Bottom?  Tremendous opportunity. Unique civic area, "it's our history." 

SPEAKERS:

[NOTE: This sometimes got painful, and I wrote "blah, blah, blah..." more than once, so I am not going to identify anyone by name, because these were mainly well-intentioned citizens who got up and spoke their mind, no need for me to make fun of them because I was getting tired and cranky].

SPEAKER 1:  Discussed the Shockoe Bottom plan, based on some sort of neighborhood guidelines.  Indicated "Shockoe Bottom District [development] will be....compatible in scale and character."  Said ballpark isn't.  City doesn't want a stadium in Shockoe Bottom.

SPEAKER 2:  Awful idea.  Games are boring.  Piece of cement fell from the Diamond, two pieces fell off the Boulevard Bridge recently, should we tear down the Boulevard Bridge too?  Richmond's government is institutionalized incompetence.  Cheapest and most effective thing Mayor Jones should do is enforce the existing building code.  Mentioned the Eggleston Hotel. 

SPEAKER 3:  Had been a deal several years ago to refurbish the Diamond.  RBI [Richmond Baseball Initiative, of which Brian Bostic was a member] "sabotaged deal" by telling Braves should get a NEW stadium.  No evidence of economic impact of baseball stadiums.  Camden Yards came AFTER Inner Harbor revitalized, THAT was the driver for downtown Baltimore, not the ball park.  Read from Page 114 of report on impact of the Denver Coors Stadium on the LODO area of Denver.

PK:  Used example of the Pocahontas Parkway bonds, said these are not general revenue bonds [NOTE:  Mr. Kreckman, don't think you want to bring up defaulting revenue bonds as an even tangential example, but that's just me].  Missing pieces = not speculative development.  [NOTE:  Not sure what that last sentence means].

CD:  "Who are your tenants?  Do you have a demographic study?  How about a marketing study?"

[NO RESPONSE TO THESE QUESTIONS]

SPEAKER 4:  18th c. street grids cannot support peak traffic; shouldn't shoehorn something into a part of Richmond that's UNIQUELY Richmond.  What about the Master Plan?  What are we going to lose?  Outside consultants that don't know Richmond aren't any good.

PK:  2,000 cars.  5,500 people, how many come downtown daily "and use that same grid system?"  [NOTE:  Is he serious?  No one uses the Shockoe Bottom grid system that works Downtown, if they can help it.  It's insane, with one-ways and dead ends and all kinds of craziness].

"If not Shockoe Bottom, then where?"

CD:  Master Plan has Boulevard as a sports-entertainment district.

SPEAKER 5:  2,000 cars, unsustainable, need light rail, other transportation solutions.

BB:  Use the existing parking decks after hours.

SPEAKER 6:  BB should be commended for his passion for bringing baseball back to the City.  But what about baseball in Manchester, looking back at City skyline, a la Pittsburgh ball park?  [NOTE: I suggested this too!]

SPEAKER 7:      Destroying historic character of the neighborhood.  Let's keep Shockoe Bottom as part of history.

SPEAKER 8:  BB, RBI sabotaged redevelopment of the Diamond.  Braves left because of the dysfunction here.  Issue with people from the counties coming into the area - will they really go Downtown?

SPEAKER 9:  Same stuff, about how Shockoe Bottom needs a development anchor.  The issue is the flood plain.  Have to have major development to "solve" flood plain issue."  [NOTE:  Will someone please explain this to me so I can stop asking?]  Asks CD "Shockoe Bottom or Short Pump?"  CD:  "Boulevard."

SPEAKER 10:  Sierra Club AGAIN.  More about transportation options.

SPEAKER 11:  Follow the money.  What about the practicality?  Was $50M, then $60M, now $70M....What happens to regional cooperation?  And flood plain issues, flooding will occur in area, even if it doesn't get into the ball park.  "Speculative at best, imprudent and irresponsible at worst."

SPEAKER 12 [GUY FROM TAPPAHANOCK]:  "Outsider, scapegoat, and laughingstock."  [NOTE:  Does he mean Richmond?]  When first heard, thought was stupidest idea [he'd] ever heard, only sports Richmonders ever care about are high school.  "If you build a stadium, they're still not going to come."  If it's such a great idea, and going to make so much money, do what Jack Kent Cooke did and build it yourself with your OWN money.

SPEAKER 13:  Goes to Lynchburg to see the ball team there [NOTE:  Go Hillcats!]  Parking is free, doesn't have to, and doesn't want to, walk through a neighborhood.  Doesn't stop for dinner, wants to go to the game and then leave.  Experts in New Orleans predicted flooding solution would work there too, ended up with Katrina.

SPEAKER 14:  Thanked CD for financial analysis that was included in Style Weekly.  What happens if predicted sales revenue does not occur?  What are developer fees?  How much rent?  Who gets skybox fees?

SPEAKER 15:  Move forward from baseball on the Boulevard.  Ballpark good for Downtown, condominiums, CenterStage, the National.  Younger people "swarm" to Downtown.  Not going to go to a City with no fun stuff [NOTE:  I actually wrote that insipid sentence.].  Had a chance on Boulevard, it didn't work.

SPEAKER 16:  Fled from Philly TO Richmond.  Wanted history, culture, charm, AND to get away from Philadelphia sports.

SPEAKER 17:  Diamond lost attendance because the Braves kept taking players up, the Braves "never gave us a chance to have a winning team."

SPEAKER 18:  Comes down to money.  Professors' studies on publicly funded sports facilities, studying since the 1980s, 2008 study, say "not a single stadium - minor, middle, or major league - supports itself."

SPEAKER 19:  Richmond Public School teacher.  Schools are old.  Love to see the City build and invest in existing schools.  School system needs the money.  Teachers and kids deserve it.  Quality schools attract quality students, THAT would put the City on the map [NOTE:  AMEN, Brother Ben!].

SPEAKER 20:  Shockoe Bottom neighborhood associations support the ball park.  Their issue is the flood plain. 1700 block of Main and Franklin.  Flood plain is "the economic black hole sucking the viability out of the area."  [NOTE:  Poetic, albeit a bit dramatic].

SPEAKER 21:  Good location, propose a smaller scale stadium, and a multi-purpose sports facility.  Can blend with the existing fabric there.  Green open space, multi-use space.  "Build it so they will come."  Diversify uses of the facility.

SPEAKER 22:  27 year resident of Richmond.  Airplane landing at RIC, pilot will say "set your clocks back 30 years."  [NOTE:  Dude, those are fighting words. You haven't been here long enough to say stuff like that about MY City.  Dueling pistols beneath the trees at Hollywood Cemetery at dawn].  "This is about the future survival of this City."  [NOTE: Are you serious? "Future survival of the City"...I mean, come. ON.].  Friend of BB.  Oh.  Maybe that explains the hyperbole.

SPEAKER 23 :  Issue about baseball Downtown, really about the future, we can't be selfish.  [NOTE:  Why am I hearing Whitney Houston singing "I believe that children are the future....." in my head?  I'm getting giddy]. 

"How many of you are under 40, raise your hands?"  Lots of hands go up.

"How many of you under 40 want baseball in the Bottom?"  Most hands that were up come down.  [NOTE:  Bet he's thinking "Oh shoot.  THAT didn't go like I'd planned...."].

Well, it's STILL about the future and we can't be selfish.  So we need baseball in the Bottom.

 SPEAKER 24:  Issue should not be about baseball or progress.  Issue should be about commitment to regionalism.  Baseball in Shockoe Bottom is City on its own. Need shared regional solution to baseball.

WRAP UP:

YES:  JW:  Good that everyone is involved.  Issue about tenants, office space.  Economics is key, need economy to support this project. 

NO: PK:  Surprised about the amount of misinformation about the project.  Think it would be a good thing for the newspaper to explain, "now time in history, are we actually going to go out and be a great City."  Otherwise could be Lynchburg, not Charlotte, passing us by.

[NOTE:  Cannot include what was in my notes in response to this last comment, since it was neither polite nor ladylike.  Suffice it to say (i) you DO NOT rag on my City, which I consider world class right d*mn now; (ii) are you REALLY suggesting that Double-A baseball makes a City "world class;" and (iii) why in the world pick on Lynchburg, which never did anything to you, is where my mother lives, and an absolutely lovely town?  Now Charlotte you may rag on all day long.  Rant over.  I'm tired and crabby and not at my best].

So, that's it, the hopefully somewhat comprehensible blow-by-blow of the great Shockoe Bottom Debate.  Once I've let it marinate a while, I intend to write a piece on my personal take on the arguments, having now seen them face-to-face and up close and personal.  I'm sure you'll all be holding your breath.

Good night all.

In Honor of Friday: I Want to Hang with "Jack Goes Forth" and "Checkout Girl"

I was trolling through various humor blogs, trying to start Friday on a lighter note, since I have some stressful stuff coming up later today.  Oh, let's just be honest...I am procrastinating.

OMG.  Just read my first "Jack Goes Forth" blog posting.  HY. Sterical.  As funny as Checkout Girl's behind-the-curtain view of the patrons and employees of an upscale market.

From his May 6 posting:

• "You promise you won't blog about this?" - Prominent Richmond Girl
• ...I need to stop making that promise.  It's killing the integrity of my blog.  Oh wait.  My blog doesn't have a single ounce of integrity.  Never mind.
• "I promise baby.  Now let's do this!"

I also now heart Jack for leading to my discovery of the term "hammercanned," which is just awesome. 

I want to meet Jack and CG for drinks and just hang, because I bet they are even funnier in person.  We could invite John Sarvay and Jeff Kelley, and we could have our own weird, twisted bloggers' version of the Algonquin Roundtable.  I'd order a Pink Taco and try to get Jack to reveal the true identity of "Prominent Richmond Girl." 

One can dream.....

Posting Redux: "Closets? You Don't Need No Stinkin' Closets!"

For some reason I was curious about how long I have been blogging, and I looked back in my archives, and discovered it's been since June 23, 2007.  Holy snikeys!  It seems like just yesterday....[cue romantic music]...

Anyway, enough goofy hokum.  I was reading a few of my earlier posts, and several made me giggle.  I think I was funnier back then, pre-baseball in the Bottom dialogue.  Or maybe I am just fooling myself, and I've NEVER been funny.

Anyhoo, I thought I'd repost this as an "oldie but a goodie," and something I feel like I deal with daily when selling in [you insert historic City/close-in County neighborhood]: the dreaded issue of closet space.  So here ya go, Round Two!

*******

Just got off the phone with a Realtor who wants to show one of my listings - hurray!  He said he had some questions before taking his people over, and of course, the #1 one out of his mouth is "So, how is the closet space in [said property]?" 

Sigh.  I am going to pull my hair out.  Stick needles in my eyes.  Bang the phone against my head.  You see, most of my work is in the Fan District, the Museum District, Church Hill, and other old City neighborhoods.  It's where I've had most of my listings and sales, and it's also where I live.  I grew up my whole life in old houses.  I LOVE old houses.  I LOVE being in a neighborhood where I can walk my daughter to school, go around the corner to a little market if I'm out of coffee, sit on the front porch and talk to my neighbors while having a cocktail in the evening.  In fact, I don't understand why EVERYONE doesn't want to live in just such a cool, urban, walkable neighborhood. 

But here's the thing, people:  There will NOT be big closets in old homes.  Period.  End of story.  Unless someone has renovated an old trunk room into closet space, taken a previous bedroom and cannibalized it for closets or a dressing room, added built-ins, or otherwise re-engineered the existing space, the closets will be small.  And here's what I want to say every time someone starts whining "But there just isn't that much closet space...."  So what?  GET OVER IT.  It's the Fan, they're old houses, it's just the way they were built.  People didn't have as much...ahem...stuff as we do now.  OR, they used armoires, and trunks, and stored out-of-season clothes in little closetless rooms devoted entirely to that purpose.  If you are moving to the Fan/Museum District/Bellevue/fill-in-the-blank here, you are moving for the ambiance, for the charm, for the neighborhood, for the LIFESTYLE.  You are not going to have the same kind of storage space you had in the 6,000 square foot McMansion in Barrington.  So suck it up, buy an armoire, get creative, and MAYBE even consider getting rid of some of your....stuff.

So there.  I've vented.  Don't even get me STARTED on garages.  My feelings on the "need" for same will have to be saved for a different day, when I'm not so cranky.

Baseball in the Bottom: Mayor Jones, Where Is That Report?

Apparently, the consultants' report analyzing Highwoods Properties' financial projections for Shockoe Center, a/k/a the Shockoe Bottom baseball stadium and ancillary, related development, was to have been provided to the Jones administration as of Monday, May 4, 2009.  This was in a teensy tiny blurb on the front page of the Richmond Times Dispatch Monday paper, so it may or may not be accurate.  But here's one citizen who would really like the Jones administration to release it ASAP.  How's about posting it on a City website or otherwise?  Then everyone can read it and reach their own conclusions based on the data contained in the report.  Just an idea.

Shockoe Bottom Is the Best Place for a Ballpark: Yes or No

Finally!  A point-counterpoint debate on baseball in Shockoe Bottom!  Up until this point, I believe all the public debates and community meetings have been show cases for formal presentations of only one side of the argument, either for or against.

The Richmond Times-Dispatch is hosting a Public Square this upcoming Tuesday, May 12, 2009 from 7:00 p.m. until 8:30 p.m.  To my knowledge, and I might be incorrect on this point, this is the first head-to-head debate between the development team proposing a new baseball stadium in Shockoe Bottom and the community-based opposition to the Shockoe Bottom stadium proposal.

Here are the details:

• WHAT:  Debate, "Shockoe Bottom Is the Best Place for a New Ballpark:  Yes or No"
• WHEN:  Tuesday, May 12, 2009 from 7:00-8:30 p.m.
• WHO:   For:  Paul Kreckman, Vice President, Highwoods Properties, and Brian Bostic, Chairman, Richmond Baseball Club;  Against:  Charlie Diradour, Lion's Paw Development Company, LLC, and Jean Wright, Attorney and Historic Preservation Advocate
• WHERE:  Richmond Times-Dispatch Headquarters, 300 East Franklin Street

I'm glad we finally have both sides of the debate, going head-to-head.  I will admit that I personally haven't been very motivated to go see a developer proposal.  Here's why: in the practice of law, there are two types of writing you have to master, (1) objective writing; and (2) persuasive writing.  Type One is what you do when you are summarizing the facts in a case file for your boss, who is not going to read the actual file, only the summary.  In that situation, it is your job to present all the facts and information in a neutral, objective way.  Type Two is what you do when you are arguing your case to the court, or in a brief, or at the negotiating table.  In that circumstance, you are advocating and advancing a particular position.  Most of the meetings to date have been the Highwoods and Baseball Club people presenting their case, i.e., making a persuasive, not an objective, case.

That doesn't mean I think there is anything wrong with Highwoods Properties and the Richmond Baseball Club making a persuasive case IN FAVOR OF their project.  It's just that I personally don't choose to put much stock in that type of presentation.  I want to see the cold, hard facts.  I want the primary source data.  I want to see the projections, financial and otherwise.  I want to reach my own conclusions based on the underlying information.

So, I have not been to one of the many developer-only presentations.  But I plan to be at the May 12, 2009 Richmond Times-Dispatch Public Square with bells on.  I think the point-counterpoint debate format is AWESOME, and exactly the real-time testing of the arguments for and against this project that we as a community need to have on this very important development issue.

So DONT MISS IT.  As I used to say circa 1986, "Be there or be square!" [bad pun COMPLETELY intended]. And see if you can drag yourself through some of the primary source data before you show up.  It will make for a better and more reasoned debate all around.  Here's a link to the Shockoe Center website, www.shockoecenter.com, and a blog post with a previous consultant report attached.  Hope to see you May 12!

[NOTE:  Per a Richmond Times-Dispatch "Happenings" blurb in the Monday paper, the report commissioned by the City of Richmond, analyzing the financial projections contained in the Highwoods proposal, was released to the Jones administration this week.  It would be wonderful if that report could be released to the public in advance of the May 12, 2009 debate.  Since we, the taxpayers, paid $100,000+ for the thing, I can't see any justification for a delay.]