11 Responses to “pushing for a stadium in Shockoe (again?)”

1. posted by john m at September 25, 2008 6:45 am [#]:
   

   Michael Paul Williams weighs in:

   An area between Interstate 95 and Main Street Station is the site of an ongoing archaeological dig. “The land around you for several blocks was the regional center for the commerce in black slaves,” a sign reads at the Lumpkin’s Slave Jail Archaeological Excavation.

   A ballpark so hauntingly close to this blood-stained site would be like a Ferris wheel atop ground zero.

   What would we call the facility? Triangle Trade Park? Would the Braves — an offensive nickname in itself — be replaced by the Slaves?

2. posted by No Baseball, please at September 25, 2008 3:56 pm [#]:
   

   This is strange, especially from Wilder, who is at the head of the (unfinished/underfunded) Slavery Museum in Fredericksburg. He of all people should know how important this land is. I wouldn’t mind a stadium of some sort downtown, but perhaps not on the graves of the lost people who built this city. If these were Confederate graves, the land would have been set aside long ago and no talk of baseball would have ever come up. There would be flags everywhere. Huge gravestones. Women in hoop skirts holding tear-soaked handkerchiefs. Not cars, asphalt, oil stains, broken bottles.

3. posted by Scott Burger at September 25, 2008 5:06 pm [#]:
   

   This is all just another downtown distraction from fixing school buildings and infrastructure.

4. posted by Ramzi at September 25, 2008 11:31 pm [#]:
   

   Across the country studies have shown that stadiums do not help an area in which they are built, in fact it has the opposite effect. The only reason anyone would build a stadium in Shockoe Bottom is because they would personally benefit, either from big kickbacks or pouring the concrete to build it. Putting a stadium in the middle of one of the few economically viable sections of town is by definition stupid. It is right at I-95 and I-64 and will create ridiculous traffic conditions, parking is already bad enough, but hey, if you drive out the fifty small businesses there it might make room for a few cars. Why isn’t the old site good enough other than the fact that VCU wants the property?

5. posted by James at September 26, 2008 11:18 am [#]:
   

   I love how a site that is currently a parking lot can cause such controversy. Where was everyone when they paved over the graves? This is why Richmond will never progress beyond a small town. I bet if they were building a whole foods no one would care.

6. posted by Jeff E. at September 26, 2008 11:26 am [#]:
   

   Private developers haven’t shown any interest in building anything on the wasteland that exists between Grace St. and Broad. There are several huge weed-infested surface lots there along with the last building left standing after the Loving’s fire. This is an ideal way to fill an ugly gap and hopefully encourage the City to take care of the streets and sidewalks in the Bottom. Perhaps the ballpark itself won’t be profitable but the synergy between it and the Bottom would encourage new businesses to open and for the existing ones to see a marked increase in revenue. Revenue that goes back to the City coffers and can be used to pay for needed programs. I’m not sure that the answer to Richmond’s school woes is more money considering what we already spend per pupil but that’s another argument. As far as the Lumpkin’s archaeological dig is concerned, the stadium will be near it, not on it and perhaps a deal can be struck between the parties involved to build a museum on this location. The group doing this has struggled for years to find funding for a Slave Trail and museum and perhaps this is the answer.

7. posted by john m at September 26, 2008 3:50 pm [#]:
   

   Where was everyone when they paved over the graves?

   Consciousness and awareness has changed. A great deal of information about this area has only come to wider circulation in the past few years.

8. posted by Mary Kroll at September 27, 2008 1:28 pm [#]:
   

   Pick one side of the street, Doug.

   A few years back, Wilder firmly kiboshed the Shockoe stadium proposal.

   Serious, serious work would need to be done on the roads before any large development is done on that block. To say nothing of parking, which has decreased in that area significantly due to changes is parking in adjacent neighborhoods (i.e. the VCU crowd taking up farmers market spots).

9. posted by River District News » Loupassi introduces stadium financing bill - Richmond, Virginia at January 14, 2009 10:58 am [#]:
   

   [...] Finance Committee. Delegate Manoli Loupassi has introduced a bill regarding financing the proposed Shockoe Stadium. CHPN.net has the story: Del. Loupassi has introduced a bill to divert the state sales taxes [...]

10. posted by Loupassi introduces stadium financing bill | RVANews at January 14, 2009 3:08 pm [#]:
    

    [...] Finance Committee. Delegate Manoli Loupassi has introduced a bill regarding financing the proposed Shockoe Stadium. CHPN.net has the story: Del. Loupassi has introduced a bill to divert the state sales taxes [...]

11. posted by River District News » House Finance Committee passes stadium financing bill - Richmond, Virginia at February 2, 2009 11:15 am [#]:
    

    [...] Loupassi’s bill to help finance Shockoe Stadium has passed the House Finance Committee with a 19-2 vote. The bill would set aside a [...]

Share a Comment