Top Ten Reasons VCU Shouldn't Get City Stadium

OK, I know I am being unreasonably prolific today, but the news that a VCU-City Stadium deal is imminent has got me both fired up and feeling like I am racing against a clock.  Also I write fast, although not necessarily well.

So, in no particular order, here are my Top Ten Reasons VCU Should NOT Get City Stadium:

10.  It is happening too fast.  If VCU doesn't even know if they'll have football, why do they need the stadium now, now, NOW?

9.  The City hasn't explored adequately other options for the site.

8.  The site should be Master Planned.  Why aren't we asking the question:  What is the highest and best use for that parcel?

7.  The community stakeholders have a right to be involved.  I know the Big Entities - be they VCU or other businesses - generally hate the idea of charettes and community meetings.  I think the strong perception is that community involvement just screws stuff up.  But guess what?  We live in a democracy and this property is owned by the City.  The community has a right to be involved in the decision-making process about what happens to that property.  Why does it seem community input is not respected and considered critical to the process by a popularly elected mayor and his administration?

6.  Selling an extremely valuable developable parcel to a state-owned entity that will not pay real estate taxes makes NO SENSE.  The City will receive a fraction of what the property developed would be worth, and an even smaller fraction of the real estate tax revenue value over time of a developed parcel.

5.  Giving away an extremely valuable developable parcel to a state-owned entity that will not pay real estate taxes makes EVEN LESS SENSE. 

4.  There are other, better places for a VCU football stadium, if they really have to have one.  For example, why not master plan the existing Diamond/Arthur Ashe Center/Sportsbackers Stadium site on Boulevard as a sports and entertainment complex?  Now THAT makes some sense.  The Flying Squirrels put their money where their mouth is, invested $2M+ in the Diamond for their inaugural season, and EXECUTED.  They did an absolutely amazing job.  I'll even begrudgingly admit that the name "Flying Squirrels" works.  But here's the deal, City of Richmond:  We need to build them a new stadium.  That was the deal we made when they came here.  And they want to be on the Boulevard.  Wouldn't that be awesome?  That whole site as a sports complex, with all the ancillary businesses that would spring up around.  There already is a lot good going happening on and around the Boulevard.  I really think this would work.

[NOTE:  I know I am going to get lots of flack for saying this, but I think we have to be able to consider the site as a blank slate.  That means the Arthur Ashe Center and Sportsbackers Stadium may have to go.  I want the them to come back, don't get me wrong, but I believe in order to do it right, the City/RMA/Squirrels/whomever has to have carte blanche to master plan that 65+ acre site.]

3.  VCU needs to not get its way, for once.  VCU rolls rough-shod over  the City when it wants something.  They don't always respect the community.  Heck, sometimes they just disregard the community and do whatever they want anyway.  As examples, see promises made and broken to Oregon Hill, to the Fan.  And witness their attitude towards West Hospital, which preservationists tried to save.  Or The Museum of the Confederacy, which has been essentially swallowed up by the VCU Medical Center.

2.  If VCU is concerned about being "landlocked," they need to think hard about responsible urban infill development, rather than chewing up ever more and more and more property, like some monster Blob. 

AND THE NUMBER ONE REASON VCU SHOULDN'T GET CITY STADIUM:

10.  The City has the opportunity to control the development of the City Stadium parcel.  The City has the opportunity to do something great for the City and its residents.  City Stadium should be developed.  But it needs to be developed the right way.  I don't know what the "right way" is.  I don't know whether that site should be residential, or mixed use, or mixed income, or what.  But I personally think some type of development makes sense for that site.  Lord knows we need additional income-producing property in the City, be it residential, commercial, or retail.  And the City has the opportunity to do it right.  To CHOOSE what we want to be, not just take whatever tired hand-me-downs VCU or any other developer wants to give us.  Why would we give up that control?

This is a critical moment in Richmond's development.  Is the City administration going to rise to the occasion?  Are the citizens going to step up and say at the very least, "Go Slower!"?  Personally, I really hope the answer is "yes" on both counts.

That's my $.02.  Comments welcome.

Comments

[FireGuy]

Hmmm. Whether or not brilliant minds can agree about Boulevard and the Squirrels, the remaining points of the article are good ones. City property belongs to the citizenry, and as such local gorillas should be limited to 300 pounds.

[FanGuy]

With respect to # 1, yes, the Style article did say the Squirrels were now saying "live up to the deal." The point is that when they came to Richmond, they said "we are not coming with the expectation that the city must build us a new stadium." Look it up.

With respect to 2(b), you are wrong about the study -- it predated Highwoods' proposal.

If the city pays for a ballpark on the Boulevard in hopes it will spur economic development we are even dumber than I thought. In the 50 years that baseball has been on the Boulevard it has failed to spur economic development -- If it had there wouldn't be a need for yet another charette about the Boulevard.

[Melissa Savenko]

Hey FanGuy, how's it going? Thanks for commenting.

I'm willing to be wrong, and I admit I often rely on my memory of newspaper articles. But here's what I thought on those two items that you object to:

1. I thought in the most recent comprehensive Squirrels article I read, the cover story in Style a few months ago, naming the Squirrels as "Richmonder of the Year," there was a discussion from the team owners that they had met their obligation, and they wanted RMA to do what they said they would do and build them a new stadium on the Boulevard. I am not suggesting it was a contractual obligation. But I interpreted all the reporting on the issue, in that article and way back when when the Squirrels were coming to town, as somewhat of a "handshake" deal. I'll go dig up the article in a bit....

2. I don't think my suggestion about Boulevard is hypocritical at all. Here's why:

a. I attended a charette organized by Charles Samuels, Councilman for the District, that concluded just a few weeks ago. In those meetings, a mixed-use development anchored by a new baseball stadium was the overwhelming proposed use for that site. I'm pretty sure there is no more current analysis of the Boulevard/Scotts Addition area.

b. I believe - although I again am relying on memory - that the study that said the highest and best use for the area was NOT baseball was commissioned by or authored by...Highwoods Properties. Which was at the time pushing HARD for a baseball stadium in the Bottom. I believe there are a number of competing studies that have recommended baseball remain on the Boulevard. Again, I'll have to dig some hard data to support my position.

c. Finally, my position favoring baseball on the Boulevard - and a new stadium - has been consistent for quite a long time. I CAN source that quite easily by directing you back to my blog posts over baseball back when the Bottom proposal was on the table. But I'm sure you recall, as we had some back-and-forth on the issue at the time. [:)]

The point is, reasonable minds can differ. And I think it only makes imminent sense to put all the athletic facilities together. Let the Squirrels play ball, let VCU play football, let Sportbackers do whatever Sportbackers does with their stadium. Master plan the site for recreational sports as well - softball fields, soccer fields, bike trails, a skate park. Connect all of it to the green space and City park behind the Science Museum. REALLY make it an interconnected sports/entertainment/cultural district. Include appropriately scaled retail and commercial in the development plan. Ask the development community for their input - what types of commercial/retail uses would be compatible with the area, if that was the overarching vision? Think BIG. Then execute.

[FanGuy]

Wow, you had me until you completely contradicted yourself with this little gym about the Squirrels:

"We need to build them a new stadium. That was the deal we made when they came here."

First, the team (and everyone else) claimed there was no requirement that they get a new ballpark.

Second, it's pretty hypocritical for you to be asking for a "highest and best use" anaylsis of the City Stadium property when a "highest and best use" survey of the Boulevard found that mixed used -- NOT BASEBALL -- was the best and highest use for that area. Nevertheless, here you are demanding that the City build the Squirrel a new ball park.

That's typical Richmond for you.