A group of Richmond historians, activists and neighborhood residents is uniting behind an alternative plan to commercial development in Shockoe Bottom without using a ballpark as the magnet project. Commenters are weighing in at on the plan that supporters say will honor the area's slave-trading past while allowing for growth. Here are a few excerpts:
History sells better than baseball in this town. I hope the plan will be studied and taken seriously. — Posted by Jennie Dotts, Dec. 31, 2:50 p.m.
It will pay for itself … and will do so long after our lifetime. Read the specifics. Of course, developers want a big, immediate profit for themselves. We need to plan for now and for 10 years from now. — Posted by mickpea, Dec. 31, 6:04 p.m.
This seems to be a great alternative to locking a baseball stadium in the Bottom, an idea that the majority of citizens have said (over and over) they do not want. This plan is respectful, without pushing history, or relying on to make the plan work. The park, with the creek, allows local residents and workers to enjoy the outside in the heart of the city. The linear design opens the benefits of a park to a larger variety of areas of the city. The only thing I do not see is development that would increase the tax base, however I suspect that would be done on the Boulevard, and other areas of the downtown district. — Posted by Glen Allen, Dec. 31, 11:13 p.m.
This plan is nothing compared to the ballpark plan. It doesn't bring in business and revenue to the city. The group that is proposing this has no money and lacks credibility to get funding. — Posted by ForRespect, Jan. 1, 9:55 a.m.
Why don't we just do what's in the freaking Downtown Master Plan? We spent two years developing that and nobody pays any attention to it. It was created with maximum citizen input and then it was approved by democratic vote of City Council. Not sure why we're reinventing the wheel when we've done all the hard work and have our comprehensive plan for development. It's easy to dismiss the stadium scheme because it conflicts with the goals of the downtown plan. Not sure why everyone is having such a hard time seeing that. — Posted by s on Jan. 1, 6:30 p.m.