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:
- Plan for "right" capacity;
- Locate contiguous to promising development;
- Take advantage of land [think I missed something here];
- Oriented to transportation;
- Respect street grid;
- Allow fan circulation around the ballpark;
- Orient to connect other areas of significant development;
- Parking lots off site;
- Master plan for additional development; and
- 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.
FG,
You were watching from home? I was starting to think you could be John Dodge :) There goes one theory.
Again, all Style has written on the topic is out in the open for anyone to read, critique and correct. You have pointed out no inaccuracies in our cover story, and neither has anyone else.
Mr. Diradour's article was an independent opinion piece, and as I've said we've offered the same opportunity to proponents of the ballpark. I'm hoping they take us up on the offer. Plus, we pay!
I certainly have nothing vested in this project, so I'm not sure what you mean by that. I am a city taxpayer (unlike Gary Armstrong), but that's all. Certainly I don't have as much of a vested interest as the four RTD debaters.
FanGuy, to change the subject slightly, I'd like to get you on the record with your opinion. Let's just say -- imagine for a moment -- that the ballpark development does indeed require city-backed bonds to make it work (I know that you keep saying it won't, but let's just say it does).
I'm assuming if that happens, your argument would change slightly, because so much of it has focused on the project not requiring city-backed bonds. Would you still be in favor of such a project? Would your analysis change?
Posted by: Jason Roop | May 16, 2009 at 11:06 PM
FG,
Jason is right about one thing. You don't change people's minds by insulting them and you offend people who haven't made up their minds. You are your own worst enemy.
Lighten up.
Posted by: Paul H | May 14, 2009 at 10:38 PM
About the "Flooding Issues":
I'm a Civil Engineer that focuses on drainage and storm sewer design. I have not worked on any projects dealing with Shockoe Bottom, but I have talked with a few people who have. Here is my two cents.
The “flooding issues” issues in Shockoe Bottom have been mitigated as much as is financially possible and for all intents and purposes the storm drain system in place now has “solved” the problem as best we can or should. The most important part of that system is the flood wall which will protect the Bottom from the most serious threat of flooding, the James River. Two years ago the city upgraded most of the storm sewer inlets in the Bottom which will help prevent flooding from storm runoff. Effectively these two systems negate the fact that the Bottom is in a flood plain.
“What about Gaston?” you ask. Depending upon whom you ask, the remnants of Gaston could be classified as a 2,000 year to 5,000 year storm. That means statistically a storm of that magnitude occurs once every 2,000 to 5,000 years. Some estimates said that the amount of water flowing through Shockoe Bottom was a much as the regular flow though the James River. There is absolutely nothing that could have been done to prevent that flood. Gaston should not be used as an example of why not to build or develop the Bottom because there is very little chance of a flood of that magnitude occurring again in the lifetime of any potential development.
As for the development improving the drainage in the area, it could potentially reduce the chance of minor flooding, but not significantly. Minor flooding has been addressed by the city, and the nature of the development will likely create more runoff. Where the development could make an impact is with pollutant removal from the runoff, but this has a negligible effect on flooding.
All in all, I think the “flood issue” is not really an issue at all and the issue shouldn’t be used to argue for or against the ballpark.
That said, my biggest problem with the project it the architecture. The drawings I’ve seen for both Shockoe Center and the Boulevard redevelopment are bland, generic and do not contribute to the character of the city. If you are going to spend hundreds of millions of dollars, could you at least make something that looks good.
Posted by: Kyle | May 14, 2009 at 09:42 PM
Jason, wow, talk about hypocritical. I assume that when Style referred to Mr. Bostic by talking about his physical size, THAT was sticking to the issues?
I really don't expect you to see what has been wrong with Style's coverage of this. You are personally invested. Plenty of objective folks out there do see it though.
As for the Forum, I watched it online. Let's be real - a forum like that is hardly a place to change minds. The people who show up to those events largely already have their minds made up, and are passionate about it, regardless of whether they know what they are talking about. The facts often don't matter to them, as shown by the fact that many kept making the same incorrect factual statements about financing and secondary development even after Kreckman kept telling them they had the facts wrong.
As for my earlier comments, I stick by them. There were some real nutjobs at the forum, including one lady who said she moved from Philly specifically because she wanted to get away from professional sports, and that if a stadium was built, she wouldn't spend any more money downtown. I really don't want someone that extreme making decisions in the town I live in, that's for sure.
Another woman was vehemently opposed to the project partially because it was going to tear down the Farmer's Market. Wrong. Now there is someone who hasn't even bothered to look at the plan, but yet she has made her mind up and you couldn't convince her otherwise.
I don't expect my comments to influence folks like you Jason or anyone who takes what they read in Style as the gospel truth. But there are a lot of intellectually honest folks out there who are a little more open minded about things and are willing to take a hard look at this.
Posted by: FanGuy | May 14, 2009 at 03:35 PM
Here's my take on the Public Square forum Tuesday night, "Ballpark Talk: Pitching Panned," at Richmond.com: Go here -- http://www2.richmond.com/content/2009/may/14/ballpark-talk-pitching-panned/
Posted by: F.T. Rea | May 14, 2009 at 02:28 PM
FanGuy,
Just to correct the record with you yet again, Style Weekly's cover story on this issue had no corrections, and you never were able to point to any "misinformation" in it, other than going around saying there was misinformation in it.
Regarding Mr. Diradour's Back Page opinion piece, you should know that we have offered the developers of this project the same opportunity.
Your attacks on people who disagree with you as "dolts" and "slightly crazy," as you have called the engaged citizens who attended the RTD forum, are the very things that turn people off about your posts. It's a shame that you have been unable to debate this important project by sticking to the issues, and putting forth your opinion in a respectful way.
Did you bother to stand in line and speak at the debate? Everyone who wanted to had a chance to talk. Perhaps you should have.
Posted by: Jason Roop | May 14, 2009 at 10:06 AM
Thad,
The answer to both questions is yes. It provides the most bang for the buck and will bring many thousands to the bottom for the first time. Shockoe Bottom needs to be discovered by the Richmond diaspora. That is a huge market that rarely visits downtown. There is a reason area merchants overwhelmingly support a ballpark in their neighborhood.
The infrastructure is largely there, interstate highways, public transit, existing parking. Shockoe Bottom is unusable land that produces almost no revenue.
The alternative is a non starter. There is no proposal to put a ballpark on the Boulevard or anywhere else. Baseball on the Blvd produced almost no secondary development and was designed for convenient access and departure. Shockoe Bottom is a walkable area full of existing destinations like the Canal Walk, restaurants, the 17th Street Market and many historic sites. More people are likely to learn about Lumpkins Jail and visit a proposed museum.
This idea fits Richmond like a glove.
Posted by: paul_h | May 13, 2009 at 05:09 PM
Melissa,
You did a nice job of capturing the spirit of what went down. And you did it so quickly!
Posted by: F.T. Rea | May 13, 2009 at 02:14 PM
Paul, I said over 50 AND slightly crazy. Not everyone over 50 is crazy, and not everyone that's crazy is over 50. :)
Posted by: FanGuy | May 13, 2009 at 11:44 AM
I went to the forum because I really wanted to hear both sides of this. A few observations.
First, the as J. Wight noted, the question of whether Shockoe Bottom is the best place for a ballpark is completely irrelevant, because it's the answer to the wrong question. The right question is whether putting a ballpark there is the best move for the community as a whole, given costs and benefits of this proposal versus other plausible alternatives (one of which is just not having a baseball team). I appreciated that Kreckman at least tried to speak to this point, but Bostic really did not (and neither, for the most part did Diradour).
Second, the final speakers of the night, the most pro-ballpark, also had the worst arguments. Going up there and accusing everyone over 40 (and I say this as one of the few under-40s in attendance) of being "selfish" is not a good argument and doesn't show respect for your fellow citizens. Nor is talking up what a great guy Bostic is a good argument for this proposal.
The best pro-ballpark argument I heard is that something like this is necessary to generate subsequent development of Shockoe Bottom. However Kreckman nor the others really addressed the historical preservation issues raised by the ballpark opponents. And, the ballpark opponents are absolutely right that we should distrust all claims of the economic development benefits of doing a ballpark. Study after study shows there is minimal if any benefit from public-financed ballparks. If you do a ballpark, it should be for civic reasons, not economic reasons.
Posted by: Thad Williamson | May 13, 2009 at 11:37 AM