22 Responses to “Awesome New Parking Lot Planned For Shockoe Bottom”

1. posted by shockoe at June 25, 2009 8:52 am :
   

   This is so much more environmentally friendly than a mixed use development. Thanks TA!!

2. posted by Jessamyn at June 25, 2009 9:33 am :
   

   Sweet lord! Parking lots are the worst use of urban lots. Is this real?

3. posted by dyw at June 25, 2009 9:33 am :
   

   NO NO NO I think even this is FAR too ambitious for Richmond.. I much prefer our standard overgrowth of weeds and shortsightedness.

4. posted by AWms at June 25, 2009 9:38 am :
   

   Parking to go where. There needs to more development…. more retail…we should be another carytown….

5. posted by Stuart at June 25, 2009 9:42 am :
   

   Word has it that the cutting edge new lot is backed by $60 million worth of free municipal bonds, paid for with a 4% meals tax, an 8% admissions tax, a 10% room tax, a discounted storm water fee (because using more means you should pay less), a city-backed parking lot “CDA”, and owned by Jim Ukrop (purchased with TARP money.) Think of all the new revenue we will create by charging the taxpayers $30 daily to park there.

6. posted by Scott Burger at June 25, 2009 10:33 am :
   

   Hey, even as a satire, this parking lot could be improved by…SOLAR!

   http://blogs.zdnet.com/green/?p=356

7. posted by dyw at June 25, 2009 10:47 am :
   

   Except that the sun doesn’t shine in Richmond very often.

8. posted by tvnewsbadge at June 25, 2009 10:51 am :
   

   Joke around if you want, but River City will never move forward until city leaders realize tht they have got to provide parking for more than just the fuzz and fire department.
   Have you tried to park around any of our court houses recently?
   This is a great interm project of the Bottom, until city leaders decide what they want to do down there, and will certainly bring nore people in than any “overgrowth of weeds ” ever will.
   I say go for it and
   today is not soon enough.

9. posted by Stuart at June 25, 2009 11:19 am :
   

   tvnewbadge i disagree. when i ride around the city i see half the space wasted on surface parking lots. the problem is that we are not charging a market rate for the spaces that already exist. parking needs to be more expensive to control the shortage we’re experiencing.

   either that or we could invest in transit so people don’t have to drive downtown.

10. posted by Tom at June 25, 2009 11:33 am :
    

    Actually TA has it wrong: What comes next are not lots but gargantuan parking decks owned by VCU. And, since they are an arm of the state, they won’t have to conform to local design standards because they are exempt and can build as ugly and as massive as they want. Wy to go Richmond!!!

11. posted by David at June 25, 2009 12:27 pm :
    

    While everyone was focusing on baseball in the Bottom, most missed that there were two parking decks in the development plan, to serve VCU during the day, residents/fans/shoppers in the evening. The development goes away, but the VCU desire for the parking remains.

12. posted by Stuart at June 25, 2009 1:28 pm :
    

    Why does everyone keep blaming “Richmond” for the Shockoe stadium deal not happening? The developer didn’t have enough money to build it, and the wannabe owner didn’t have enough money to buy a franchise. It’s not “Richmond’s” fault.

13. posted by Mary at June 25, 2009 2:18 pm :
    

    We need parking now, let alone with more development. Look at all the warehouses being converted to apartments.

14. posted by Scott Burger at June 25, 2009 3:57 pm :
    

    Speaking of parking…

    http://www.timesdispatch.com/rtd/news/local/article/PARKGAT25_20090625-125001/276330/

15. posted by picard at June 25, 2009 4:17 pm :
    

    Scott, you should be concerned about this.
    Ferris Wheel Planned for Mayo Bridge

16. posted by Cadeho at June 25, 2009 4:46 pm :
    

    I say again, we need to preserve the historic parking lots of Shockoe Bottom and market them as a national landmark.

17. posted by bcat at June 25, 2009 8:54 pm :
    

    Good God people, get a clue.

18. posted by Jeff E. at June 26, 2009 8:44 am :
    

    Hmmm… a Mayo Island amusement park. We may be onto something here. It certainly beats the pants off Mayo Island run-down recycling center.

19. posted by David at June 26, 2009 9:15 am :
    

    It’s my understanding that there are zoning/land use standards for the amount of parking needed for each new development, based on the number of units, number of bedrooms, type of property (single family/condo/rental). I don’t recall the planning commission or city council permitting much deviation from this for any recent developments downtown.

20. posted by tvnewsbadge at June 26, 2009 10:10 am :
    

    posted by Stuart :

    “tvnewbadge i disagree. when i ride around the city i see half the space wasted on surface parking lots. the problem is that we are not charging a market rate for the spaces that already exist. ”

    The key phase here is “ride” around the city, not be able to “park” in the city to conduct necessary business.
    If I had a dime for every time I had to forgo a meal at an eatin’ place around City Hall or Main Street or Shocke Bottom due to inability to find a place to park, I’d be a rich man today.
    And yet City Council members make sure THEY have posh parking in the area, you bet.
    It just boggles the mind how this city continues to give short shift to parking and traffic concerns and still expect people to forgo the pleasures of the ‘burbs for the “urban experience”.
    You could do at lot worst than a nicely landscaped, well lit and FREE parking lot in Shockoe Bottom.
    It’ll certainly serve the needs of the community better than some pie in the sky and ill conceived development that will only add to the problem.

21. posted by Ry at June 29, 2009 7:44 am :
    

    The only problem with parking in Richmond is that people expect to be able to park dead center in front of their destination instead of walking a couple blocks.

    Good luck building nice, free parking. I’ve never seen anything financed (intentionally) with $0 in revenue. I’m certainly willing to pay for parking in an area that it is needed if it is well cared for and not filled with trash and overgrown weeds. (ex: across from main street station)

22. posted by David at June 29, 2009 1:28 pm :
    

    It’s sorta like nobody has ever been in a real city. Do you think people in Washington, NY, Philadephia, etc expect to hop in the Lexus, or Channel 6 news car, and drive six blocks to lunch and find a parking place, free, outside the front door? Only in Richmond.

Leave a Comment