42 Responses to “more discussion on the stadium”

1. posted by Omelette at February 9, 2009 1:16 pm [#]:
   

   Aye!

2. posted by ShockoeBottomDweller at February 9, 2009 2:06 pm [#]:
   

   Lets change it from a Ballpark to A Roller Derby Rink at least it would be used more.

3. posted by Robert W. at February 9, 2009 3:35 pm [#]:
   

   I’m sure most repondents in further away Chesterfield, Henrico, and Hanover counties are in favor of the baseball stadium because they can be sure they won’t have to pay for any of it. If you only polled city residents you might just show 75% against the stadium. I wonder if that has crossed your mind.

4. posted by john m at February 9, 2009 5:29 pm [#]:
   

   From what I can gather, the demographics of CHPN are like 95% city dwellers, of whom 70%+ live in the East End. The poll, then, indicates strong support for the ball field by both city and East End residents.

5. posted by Jim at February 9, 2009 5:33 pm [#]:
   

   Robert,

   I am sure that a local neighborhood blog like CHPN is just filled with people from Chesterfield, Henrico and Hanover.

6. posted by john m at February 9, 2009 7:43 pm [#]:
   

   Perhaps he thought that the link referred to the nascent Chesterfield Henrico/Hanover People’s News?

7. posted by kimmy at February 10, 2009 7:45 am [#]:
   

   John, personally, I’d respectfully amend that sentence to read :

   The poll, then, indicates strong support for the ball field by both city and East End residents _who read the CHPN_.

8. posted by Stuart at February 10, 2009 10:28 am [#]:
   

   I saw the Gaston flood firsthand and think it’s outrageous they want to build an enormous, expensive structure in the exact spot where the water was deepest. Of the myriad other problems with this zany proposal, I would think anyone can see being underwater is the deal breaker. This project makes no sense.

9. posted by edg at February 10, 2009 11:23 am [#]:
   

   I am a strong support of the ball park. However, flooding does remain a big issue. I would like to see more about the drainage improvements and how they intend to prevent flooding in this area.

10. posted by Paul at February 10, 2009 3:09 pm [#]:
    

    The explanation I have heard is the field itself is an integral part of the flood control and drainage solution. I’ll have to hear the engineer’s explanation to understand it though. I currently have a vision of whirlpool near home plate draining the entire valley like a kitchen sink, but I’m pretty sure that’s not right.

11. posted by john m at February 10, 2009 5:18 pm [#]:
    

    @ kimmy: very true. There was stronger support for the *last* baseball dev proposal back my way, ie More Than A Touch North of Broad and well into the area where the demographics stop showing up as active readers on CHPN.

    @edg: Here is something about drainage improvements from last year.

    @Paul: Also, the design of the concourse around the field sets it above the 100-yr flood level, providing emergency access the buildings around the field. From my notes from a December presentation:

    The ballpark is the centerpiece of the flood alleviation built into the proposal. As an open 4-acre greenspace, the park would help to catch and hold water. Futhermore, by building the surface of the park below grade, the effect of this would be intensified.

    @Stuart: From the same presentation:

    By acting to alleviate the impact of flooding, the ballpark itself then makes it possible for the surrounding land to be developed. The existance of the ballpark redraws the 100-year floodmap and makes the other properties viable. Without the ballpark or a similar feature, the rest of the area will not be able to be developed.

12. posted by jacqui at February 10, 2009 6:02 pm [#]:
    

    Thanks John!

13. posted by Paul at February 11, 2009 9:33 am [#]:
    

    Precislely, thanks John.

    Still it stirs the imagination. Maybe they could flood it intentionally and use it for naval battle like the Roman Colliseum, or freeze it in the winter for ice skating. Now that would a true multi-use project.

    Of course I’m not serious, but this debate has been getting tedious and personal. It seemed worth attempting a (weak) joke.

14. posted by Scott Burger at February 12, 2009 10:36 am [#]:
    

    I really question the two qotations you gave, John_m. Most environmentalists I know consider them baloney. I would like to know more technical detail.

15. posted by Liberty at February 12, 2009 5:49 pm [#]:
    

    did you hear the idiot from the devlopment company on the news. he said anyone who opposes the stadium just dosent understand that its a good thing, that opponents werent intelligently assesing their plan. lol what an arrogant moron, i will never support these creeps

16. posted by ShockoeBottomDweller at February 13, 2009 6:09 am [#]:
    

    Actually they are trying to convince the Sheep and so far there are to many who are bleeting at the moment. It is a Boondoggle and no matter what they say it will still be a Boondoggle

17. posted by FanGuy at February 15, 2009 5:37 pm [#]:
    

    Scott, most environmentalists don’t know the first thing about engineering.

18. posted by JoeRichmond at February 15, 2009 9:22 pm [#]:
    

    Newsworthy Information:

    Gwinnett officials says stadium still a deal – Despite overruns, and now lean times, 3 officials not sorry

    http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/gwinnett/stories/2009/01/18/gwinnett_baseball_stadium.html

    Play ball? Stadium deal continues to draw criticism as costs rise, slow economy hampers potential benefits

    http://atlanta.bizjournals.com/atlanta/stories/2009/01/12/focus1.html

    Even more…
    http://www.sabernomics.com/sabernomics/index.php/category/gwinnett-braves/

19. posted by ShockoeBottomDweller at February 17, 2009 9:43 am [#]:
    

    Fan Most Developers tend find Engineers who agree with them

20. posted by Chad at April 21, 2009 10:33 pm [#]:
    

    Baseball in the city, downtown, local bars, places to eat, needed clean up, all equals, what is the complaining about? I mean, this could be great for a city that is starving for local sports and other things to do in your spare time then go watch a weekly cover band in the west end. Not everybody is down for that and the heart of the city needs something for this person.

21. posted by ShockoeBottomDweller at April 22, 2009 8:34 am [#]:
    

    Chad you have at least 5 years before they finish construction and we have local bars and places to eat now. They want to add more and starve out those who are already here. If we are starving for sports why is it we lost the River Dogs? Not baseball but it is another sports franchise that is dead because it was in Richmond. The complaint is you just visit where some of us live here and have to go through all the mess. Build a stadium in your backyard and see if that won’t cause some issues.

22. posted by Anna at April 22, 2009 2:54 pm [#]:
    

    Don’t most construction projects take a while to complete? Weren’t you asking for a large movie theater/shopping mecca? The same problems exist, yet because *you* want a Wal-Mart or Target, that construction is acceptable.

    The main attraction will be completed in 2 years, which will bring people to the bottom to service those “already here” before the new places are completed.

23. posted by paul_h at April 22, 2009 5:56 pm [#]:
    

    sbd, I don’t have the link, but Gwinnett Stadium was finished in about 16 months.

    Are you always a worst possible scenario person? I guess it depends on the subject.

24. posted by ShockoeBottomDweller at April 22, 2009 6:38 pm [#]:
    

    Actually the project I suggested would take less than the 2 years you quote Anna and the stadium they have currently in the proposal with all the proper draining and regulations they claim will be in place will take more than 2 years that is a fact The set up I propose would take 14-17 months from start to finish that is the timetable the construction group who put up Targets gave me and they build this very set up all over the country so I think they are more realistic a source than your group.

25. posted by ShockoeBottomDweller at April 22, 2009 6:39 pm [#]:
    

    Wait Anna I forget that Highwood builds Stadiums all the time.

26. posted by Anna at April 22, 2009 7:31 pm [#]:
    

    No, SBD, HKS builds stadiums all the time. And we’ve had that discussion before, and I quoted for you the answer I received from the developers that HKS *WILL* design the ballpark themselves.

    Highwoods oversees construction projects all the time, though. That is their expertise on this matter. Seems like you did forget.

    The reason the development will take 5 years (if that’s an actual number, you could have been exaggerating on that, who knows) if it DOES take 5 years, is because it has multiple parts like any construction project in the Bottom will have. That’s part of the new restrictions as I understand them – green space and large developments.

27. posted by ShockoeBottomDweller at April 22, 2009 7:43 pm [#]:
    

    Well Paul_h was Highwood in charge of the whole project? That would be a No are they going to use the crew from Gwinnett to build here? Not likely. Is it wrong to figure in issues that will be a major issue for any construction? It took the Federal Courthouse more than 4 years to build and they did not have the drainage issues that have to be put in place before they actually get the foundation completely down. They could pull off 16 month if you work 24/7 and that raises the price even higher. You want to go with someone selling you this be my guest but it won’t happen without delays. Besides the shopping center I was using is a standard cookie cutter set up they do all the time.
    Trust me This is far from Worse case but you want to go with the sunshine and rainbows be my guest

28. posted by Stuart at April 22, 2009 8:54 pm [#]:
    

    Gwinnett Stadium also cost $65 million, despite rosy projections that it would only cost $45 mil (and 2,500 of their “seats” are a grass berm in the outfield). A similar 40% cost overrun puts our downtown stadium price tag at $100 mil. Gwinnett residents are paying for their stadium cost overrun with increased property taxes. What tax will City Hall raise to cover our stadium boondoggle?

29. posted by ShockoeBottomDweller at April 22, 2009 8:58 pm [#]:
    

    Anna Dear They designed it are they providing the crew to build? They providing all the Material because Architects don’t build they have a different Construction company that handles that but you knew that didn’t you. Highwoods handles buildings that have office space that is all they have done as we have discussed or have you forgot? maybe they will add desks to each chair they put in. I mean Anna your the great expert have you ever even been to a construction site let alone building a Stadium? You also have to have experts inspect the complex and since Richmond does not a building contractor qualified they have to get someone to perform that task thus adding more time to your flawless timetable but you took that into account? Clearing getting materials to the site. Rerouting all the electrical,Gas lines,Phone, Cable and all the drainage stuff already put in place lets see I miss anything? Blocking off the area of construction. Having to have the right temp to pour the concrete foundation. But I am just pulling things like facts but I have no clue on how these things work because I am making things up. Just like the Architects and planners who gave you your timetable.

30. posted by paul_h at April 22, 2009 9:51 pm [#]:
    

    @sbd, #21, #24, #25, #27, #29
    (today only)

    You are too snide and prolific to keep up with. Tried and true tactics which I have written about elsewhere.

    Sunshine and rainbows to you too.

31. posted by Anna at April 22, 2009 10:19 pm [#]:
    

    Seriously, cut the “anna dear,” its condescending.

    The correct temperature to pour concrete? You need ballpark experts for that? You need ballpark experts to find other ballpark experts to inspect the stadium? Highwoods isn’t capable of bringing in the correct people to build/design the ballpark??

    Oh, that’s right, they want to do everything the wrong way so it takes as much time as possible, so they don’t make their April 2012 deadline, and so they lose a ton of money – and so they piss off all their investors in their publicly traded company.

    I never claimed to have a timetable, certainly not from the developers, 2012 is from the plan to have baseball in the new stadium by that year – I challenged the fact that you have a timetable on the mystery project that doesn’t even exist.

    I don’t know how I let you pull me into these arguments, they’re asinine and childish. Done here.

32. posted by FanGuy at April 22, 2009 11:33 pm [#]:
    

    Stuart, re-do the math. 40% of 60 million is not 40 million.

33. posted by ShockoeBottomDweller at April 23, 2009 10:14 am [#]:
    

    gee Anna you want to be crass and not expect a zing in return? Concrete is not the same for a structure as a ballpark as it is for a building complex. Different variables have to be taken into account and many Engineers spend years getting that all straightened out. A Stadium is not some cookie cutter building you put offices in and Manage. You can’t just clear the site and slap a prefab complex down even if your Highwood or any other developer.
    Also Anna the Developer does not hire the Inspector for the project because it has to be a City/State who not only understands the designs but the building codes of this Commonwealth. Sorry but that is the law. As for Challenging my “mystery project” try going down to the Strip mall off Laburnum and know that those places were built on that timetable. I went to the Contruction people not the people who make promises.

    Glad your done Anna but I wanted to be clear with you lack of understanding of promises and reality

34. posted by tiny at April 23, 2009 10:14 am [#]:
    

    God, do I hate the word ‘boondoggle’! It has got to be the stupidest word ever!

35. posted by Stuart at April 23, 2009 10:33 am [#]:
    

    That’s true, so what tax would we raise to cover a 40% cost overrun on a $60 mil project?

36. posted by ShockoeBottomDweller at April 23, 2009 10:36 am [#]:
    

    Shenanigans was taken tiny

37. posted by ShockoeBottomDweller at April 23, 2009 10:40 am [#]:
    

    Paul_H I was on a roll sue me (did not want to leave you out and have you upset over it again)

38. posted by Scott Burger at April 23, 2009 12:39 pm [#]:
    

    Stuart,VaPAF/Center Stage pushed through a meals tax increase…

39. posted by FanGuy at April 23, 2009 1:52 pm [#]:
    

    VaPAF/Center Stage was also funded differently. Of course that little distinction appears to be lost on/ignored by the opponents.

40. posted by Scott Burger at April 23, 2009 4:45 pm [#]:
    

    so what tax would we raise to cover a 40% cost overrun on a $60 mil project?

41. posted by paul_h at April 23, 2009 4:51 pm [#]:
    

    Read this if you want a laugh.

    No Griping in Shockoe

    “I don’t like baseball. Loathe is a better description.

    I am an old rugby guy. If a game doesn’t involve a guarantee for blood loss and at least one concussion, I simply don’t enjoy it.” …

42. posted by paul_h at April 23, 2009 5:02 pm [#]:
    

    Botched the HTML.

    Here’s the link.

    No Griping in Shockoe

Share a Comment