During the construction of the new bridge for the 2nd Street Connector, the contractors made a clean cut through the canal. This cut provided a cross-section of the canal.
As shown clearly in this photograph, there is only about a foot of dark top soil above the yellowish clay liner of the south bank of the canal. (photographer placed a 4 foot ruler in the photograph to show the scale.) Bill Trout, who is the former President of the American Canal Society, visited the site, and he took a sample of the clay and demonstrated how the clay was “puddled” with water to form an impervious barrier that kept the water from leaking from the canal.
This is important because Venture Richmond’s proposed plan to slice off 5-6 feet from the top of the south bank of the canal would definitely damage the integrity of the canal by slicing into the important clay liner of the canal.
The historic James River and Kanawha canal that is below Oregon Hill is a very rare historic resource. Oregon Hill residents can be particularly proud that the home of Canal Superintendent Samuel Parsons still survives at 601 Spring Street. It is not necessary for Venture Richmond to damage the canal that has survived two centuries.
This seems like a very solvable problem. Couldn’t a small sections of the canal be redesigned and rebuilt to accommodate the needs of both the canal and the proposed ampitheater?
Again, you are ignoring the truth of the matter, Paul.
Venture Richmond and the corporations could easily build the amphitheater in this area without having any effect on the canal. They could have easily forgone the 2nd St. connector and simply reconnected Spring Street from 2nd to 5th.
But what they want to do is purposely use these things as excuses to destroy the canal for any large public use for transportation or park. They are deliberately going against public interests.
Again you ignore my point and make a bombastic speech. You refuse to acknowledge any point of view but your own. Just why would Venture Richmond WANT to destroy the canal? Isn’t this the same Venture Richmond that runs canal boat cruises out of the turning basin.
I did not ignore your point, Paul. You asked why there cannot be more compromise and I gave you an answer- Venture Richmond is not interested and in fact hostile to compromise, despite whatever fuzzy folk festival image they use. OHNA never did receive a real response to its suggestions-
https://www.oregonhill.net/2012/09/14/ohna-response-to-proposed-changes-at-possible-amphitheater-site/
You can characterize my answer as ‘bombastic speech’ if you want, but what is more outrageous than going against community and public interests by ILLEGALLY destroying the historic canal wall?
You ask why would Venture RIchmond want to destroy the canal? While I agree that from a longterm view it would make a heckofalota sense to preserve and rehabilitate the canal as it was done with the Haxall Canal to the east, Venture Richmond and its corporate masters are all about the short term control of the real estate. You see, they privately own the land around the canal, but the canal itself is a public historic resource. Venture Richmond, like Richmond Renaissance before it, is more about corporate control than public benevolence. Again, we have seen this sort of thing before-
https://www.oregonhill.net/2009/08/04/its-not-the-first-time-that-vcu-disregarded-slave-history/
Hey, you asked, I answered.
But since we are in Q and A mode, I still have a few questions that need to be answered:
1). Was Liesfeld Contracting issued a permit to demolish the 28 feet of wall as part of the 2nd Street Connector project? That seems like a very simple, straightforward inquiry.
2). Can we see a copy of Liesfeld’s contract to demolish the wall? The contract should show who hired Liesfeld and the scope of work. It seems like a logical step to request from Liesfeld a copy of the contract that they had for work on the wall.
3). NewMarket demolished a portion of the same wall on their property within 28 feet of city property a year ago in Oct. 2011 without the proper permit, and, according to press reports, was required them to get the permit after they demolished the wall. Was Liesfeld the same contractor that demolished the wall for NewMarket without the required permit in Oct. 2011?
4). Will the Commonwealth Attorney investigate the unlawful demolition of 150 feet of the historic Tredegar wall on city property? Not only was the historic wall demolished but apparently the bricks from the city-owned wall were being placed on pallets, apparently for re-sale.
But let’s cut more to the chase here. What do I expect to happen? We have already seen how the local corporate media is more interested in covering the knocking down of the canal wall as “an accident” or not at all, so I am sure we will see more of this. In the future there may be some documents ‘discovered’ that point the finger to a certain party. One of my neighbors suggested that one of the lowly construction workers may take “the fall for the wall”. Regardless, as much I would like more accountability, I suspect that this episode will be covered up in a “very Richmond” manner. And I have no doubt that there will be some half-baked attempts at ‘restitution’ that may or may not include repairs to the steps underneath the Lee Bridge, a bike path along the remaining parts of the canal, etc.
None of this will bring back the historic resource, designed by George Washington, that was deliberately destroyed. I posted the photo and information about the canal bed so that people will hopefully realize just how much more there is to the canal, WHICH CAN HOPEFULLY STILL BE SAVED.
So after all that “bombasism” the answer to my question is yes, the canal can be saved and you won’t be very happy about it. It should be about results Scott, not your personal politics.
I repeat: None of this will bring back the historic resource, designed by George Washington, that was deliberately destroyed.
Its not my personal politics that did that, Paul. But it is my personal politics that call for justice and not more cover-up.
The canal has been crumbling and in ruins for years. Large sections have already been repaired and redesigned. When you get some actual answers, I’m sure you will publish them here.
Again, you are ignoring the truth of the matter, Paul.
Venture Richmond and the corporations could easily build the amphitheater in this area without having any effect on the canal. They could have easily forgone the 2nd St. connector and simply reconnected Spring Street from 2nd to 5th.
But what they want to do is purposely use these things as excuses to destroy the canal for any large public use for transportation or park. They are deliberately going against public interests.
Instead of recognizing the truth, you would rather ignore it.
I sometimes forget you are the sole arbiter of truth.
I am still waiting for you to offer ANY truth, Paul.
All I hear from you is, oh the canal was old anyway and maybe there can be some kind of compromise. That’s not truth.
By toppling over it’s wall and cutting into it’s clay liner, the historic canal is being purposely destroyed, despite community opposition. That’s the story here. It’s ugly, but it is the truth.
What would the Scott Burger of the 1700’s say about the construction of the canal: “George Washington is destroying the land!” “Big Cotton is running the politics of our government” “Rain water will not be able to flow into the James River!!” “The canal must not be built!!”
Maybe, but we don’t live in the 1700’s, so I do not know. I am generally for better transportation, so maybe I would have been for it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_River_and_Kanawha_Canal
But this is not about standing in the way of ‘progress’. Venture Richmond and the corporations could easily build the amphitheater in this area without having any effect on the canal. They could have easily forgone the 2nd St. connector and simply reconnected Spring Street from 2nd to 5th.
I simply asked a question and you jumped down my throat. I don’t want to destroy the canal or anybody else to either, but it’s not the highway of the future either. There are competing needs for this property. A ampitheater would provide an anchor stage for the Richmond Folk Festival, perhaps the most successful festival of it’s kind and sponsored by that evil consortium, Venture Richmond and it’s corporate co-conspirators. It would also provide a year round venue for the performing arts drawing thousands of people to the riverfront, something I think both you and I would agree is a good thing.
You keep repeating that all this could be done easily done. Get your plans together, share your drawings. Will the sight lines be the same? Is your seating capacity smaller? Are there other engineering issues to be considered?
You may not realize it, but Richmond is not just about the past. It is also about the future. Preserving every square inch of historical property is not always possible or even desirable. Let’s just say if you could trade away a hundred yards of the old canal bed in return for financing a workaround, maybe say a lock built to period specifications that would divert around the ampitheater, would you take it? What if it was connected with a funding proposal that would rebuild the canal as far as the pumphouse? Would you take that? Would you even talk about that?
What if thanks to your campaign Venture Richmond cancelled the ampitheater project and the Folk Festival moved to a more accomodating location outside of town. Would that be satisfactory? Let’s say further that in addition funding for the canal never materializes and it remains the weedy ditch it has been for another 20, 40 or 100 years, would that be to your liking?
Paul, your efforts here to paint me and/or the neighborhood as ‘unreasonable’ are nothing new. After all, we have seen this spin with far bigger controversies. Long before I started doing oregonhill.net, this neighborhood has had to deal with enough Richmond apathy and corruption to make your head explode.
All I can do is point to previous posts on this website where I written about this particular basin area before- way before the 2nd Street Connector or the amphitheater were even proposed. Go ahead, look through older posts on this site. Here are just a few:
https://www.oregonhill.net/2008/09/06/what-might-have-been-or-what-could-be/
https://www.oregonhill.net/2008/02/04/master-plan-for-downtown-neighborhoodsvcu-meeting-recap/
https://www.oregonhill.net/2012/09/14/connecting-the-canals/
For years, as a citizen, I went to the Downtown Master Plan meetings and the Riverfront Plan meetings to express concerns and alternatives.
And there are many other meetings that I purposely did not attend, in case it was my input was impeding negotiation-
http://richmag.com/news/blogs.php?blogID=cf974e7e6777d9a0c3bd94126f167306
I have, at different times, been more and less outspoken and demanding than the neighborhood association on this particular situation. I have tried to leave room for ‘cooler heads’ to prevail.
In the end, there’s only so much I can personally do to keep Venture Richmond and its corporate masters from doing irreparable damage to the canal. As I have reported here, they blatantly ignore the laws, codes, regulations, citizen opposition, and public pleas. I don’t think I am the one being unreasonable.
I’ve said nothing about Oregon Hill of the ONHA.
The fact that we disagree is no big deal. What you rarely care to admit is that we agree on so much, just different ways of going about it and that your way is not the only way.
Maybe you should describe the things we agree upon then, while at the same time fully recognizing that some things should not be matters of mere opinion-
https://www.oregonhill.net/2012/10/24/somebody-should-be-going-to-jail/
I am not surprised you have said nothing about OHNA – You, and the rest of RIchmond. A major reason why I do this site is to give voice to the people who actually live here-
https://www.oregonhill.net/2012/09/14/ohna-response-to-proposed-changes-at-possible-amphitheater-site/
Again, your efforts here to paint me and/or the neighborhood as ‘unreasonable’ are nothing new.
Three points.
I haven’t criticized this blog. I have disagreed with you.
I have not criticized Oregon Hill.
The future of the canal and the ampitheater are not the sole concern of Oregon Hill.
As for agreements, here are a few general ones I thought of a few years ago..
http://downtownrichmond.blogspot.com/2009/05/ten-things-scott-burger-and-i-agree-on.html
1. A humane, effective solution to homelessness in Richmond.
2. Safer streets.
3. More use of renewable energy.
4. Improved public transit.
5. A fondness for trolleys.
6. Conservation.
7. Strict controls on the use of pesticides and fertilizers.
8. Blogging our beliefs.
9. More neighborhood businesses.
10.Richmond deserves a world class baseball stadium.
Here are some more I just thought of.
11. Water rates that encourage conservation
12. Higher tax rates on gasoline with proceeds going to mass transit.
13. Greater use of renewable energy sources like wind/solar.
14. Better schools.
15. Safe neighborhoods.
16. A walkable, bikeable city.
17. A workable sound ordinance
18. The Monroe Park master plan.
19. Greater respect and protection by VCU for surrounding neighborhoods.
20. And finally, I think we supported the same City Council candidates in the 2nd and the 5th districts.
Now we could count the ways we disagree, but that would go on forever.
While I appreciate this list, I don’t think it changes the arrogance and injustice of what is happening with the canal.
By the way, since we are having this long-winded conversation here and you did bring up the election, do you have any thoughts on the post previous to this one?
https://www.oregonhill.net/2012/12/03/election-controversies-continue/