It’s not free to attend, but there is a meeting this Wednesday by the Urban Land Institute that is focusing on riverfront connections.
How should Richmond take advantage of the opportunities that the James River offers? What types of infrastructure is necessary to encourage interaction with the James? What progress has already been made?
Join ULI and it’s Young Leader’s Group for a panel-led discussion that will highlight projects that encourage Richmond to engage with the James River. Our distinguished panel will provide commentary on the progress that has been made along Richmond’s Riverfront and will discuss the vision for the future.
Note that it is being moderated by Lucy Meade of Venture Richmond. Can we really expect the public interests to be adequately represented at this meeting?
I walked down to the ULI meeting at Tredegar this evening. It was pretty much as expected, but here’s a quick critique/review:
There was much talk about how great the James River Park, its burgeoning attendance figures (around a million), and how, while the majority of park visitors are NOT Richmond City residents (it’s about a 60/40 split), Manchester and other riverfront residential development areas are still exploding in popularity because of the park as an attraction and amenity. Community volunteerism for the park has also been a welcome success.
James River Park manager Nathan Burroughs got a lot of acknowledgment and ‘air time’ as a panelist. He wants more Richmond citizens to take advantage of the park system, since we are paying for it. He did a good job of quoting former JRP manager Ralph White: Richmonders are people of the river. The river is our past and future.
“The T.Pot Dam Bridge” got most of the attention as the thing everyone is looking forward to it (maybe it will be reconnected by May 2016?).
Ship Lock Park got mentioned as a beautiful section of the riverfront with more access and use upcoming.
Mayo Bridge renovation was also citied as a worthy but expensive project.
Ladders alongside the Haxall Canal are needed to add canoeing and paddling.
Developer Don Poppa would like the City to renovate the South Canal to add riverfront amenities for Manchester projects.
The Bridge Park idea continues to be pushed as a “big thing” for the City to do, though I am personally not a fan of this wasteful, artificial concept. It sounds like there is a still a big element out there pushing hard for more “public -private partnerships”. Scary.
The only time Oregon Hill was mentioned by name by the panelists was when newspaper columnist Phil Riggan talked about how both Forest Hill and Oregon Hill residents are not happy about parking pressures from park-goers. Developer Don Poppa kept bringing up parking issues also. He wants the City to figure out more ‘hidden’ riverfront parking, but did not elaborate on that.
Nathan Burroghs and Phil RIggan and others did bring up the wildlife and natural scenery as riverfront amenities though there was not much if any discussion of development impacts. (Nathan did mention some habitat restoration planning in the chit chat before the panel started.)
No one brought up Tredegar Green on their own, though there was a Riverfront Plan map slide that showed Tredegar Green with other places marked for ‘future development’. The official silence continues as Venture Richmond quietly pushes for rezoning.
Lots of mentions of the Virginia Capital Trail, but ZERO mention of the East Coast Greenway (www.greenway.org). Which is pretty telling, since this was supposed to be about riverfront connections. I still think the ECG will eventually have a much bigger impact on local bicycling tourism and economic development than the Cap-to-Cap.
No mention of any future plans to renovate the Kanawha Canal, though Nathan did make the point that the Riverfront Plan actually only deals with about a quarter of the James River Park’s area.
One questioner did ask about riverfront access further up or down the James River, in county areas. Nathan replied that, unlike in the City, most of the riverfront in the counties was privately owned, in flat water areas, with few opportunities for river interaction. Still, there is gradual planning coming forward in those places for better access.
Towards the end of the question and answer period, I did raise my hand and made the same point I did at the recent OHNA meeting: Although I am for better riverfront access and use, the amphitheater in Tredegar Green is NOT in the City’s Riverfront Plan. I said that twice for effect. A baseball stadium is also not in the City’s Shockoe Bottom Community Revitalization Plan. And in contrast, there are statements in the Downtown Master Plan that call for respecting historic neighborhoods, view sheds, and natural areas. Why won’t the City follow its own planning?
No one wanted to deal with the question. Riggan said controversy helps sell newspapers. Lucy Meade, the Venture Richmond moderator, tried to recover by saying that Tredegar Green as a place was in the Riverfront Plan, but I interrupted her and calmly, but firmly stated- Not the amphitheater. She finally shut up when she realized she was not helping her cause.
After the event was over I stayed and talked to a few people. There were Church Hill people there who are opposing Echo Harbor high-rise plans.
I mentioned to Nathan that in regard to riverfront parking congestion woes, while this Broad Street Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) public conversation is happening, it would be good to bring up the somewhat competing/somewhat complimentary idea of an inner-city circulator and how, during warm weather months, it could possibly include an optional riverfront stop on Tredegar or Second Street. We need to figure out how to add mass transit to the riverfront access equation in a sensitive manner.
I brought some leftover peanut chicken satay home. The plates seemed like biodegradable material but there was no recycling for cans/bottles at this meeting.
Thanks,
Scott
My bad, Nathan’s last name is Burrell, not Burroughs. My apologies.