Member since Jul 31, 2013



  • No friends yet.
Become My Friend Find friends »

Recent Comments

Re: “Architecture Review: A Post Office Restoration on West Broad Raises the Bar for Historic Renovation in Richmond

I've been admiring this building, and I'm glad to learn more about it. I wish there were some photos of the interior!

6 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by barrywilder on 06/21/2017 at 3:17 PM

Re: “Slab City: Richmond's Brutalist Buildings and What They Represent

I really admire the Pollack building. Despite the name of the form, I think it is a graceful and beautiful structure.

15 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by barrywilder on 05/30/2017 at 8:21 PM

Re: “Upfront Faith: The Visually Compelling Welcome of Richmond's Streetfront Churches

What a nice tribute to these unique spaces. So many different, unusual forms.

1 like, 0 dislikes
Posted by barrywilder on 04/20/2017 at 10:15 PM

Re: “Jackson Ward Residents Debate Bike Lane Proposal

I am a Jackson Ward resident. I bike to work. I strongly support bike lanes.

I see fewer parking spaces and constrained car traffic not as problems but as solutions.

15 likes, 2 dislikes
Posted by barrywilder on 03/22/2017 at 5:27 PM

Re: “Opinion: The Portrait in the Attic

I suspect that Mr. Slipek felt it was a timely moment to write a short memoir about a public figure and personal acquaintance who has briefly re-entered the public consciousness. I regret that the article did not express more forceful repudiation of Bazile's role in upholding racist laws.

6 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by barrywilder on 12/02/2016 at 5:29 PM

Re: “Maggie Walker Memorial Could Cost $1 Million, Process Questioned

I sincerely hope that public scrutiny does not derail or diminish this important project. The location on Broad I believe was well chosen to maximize visibility. The small triangular median is visually interesting now - but not a place to linger for more than a moment. Expanding it, adding a focal point (Walker), adding seating and open space all seem like choices designed to enliven this space.

It is not made clear in this article who, other than Mr. Peacock, Ms. Dotts and perhaps the author, is questioning the project. While suspicion is cast on the cost of the project, the artist fee, the cost of granite, and the artist selection process, no evidence is given as to why these elements of the project are suspicious.

It seems to me dishonest to validate suspicion about, "whether there was a competition," when the call for the competition is still posted on the public website of the Public art Comission (…) and the Public art commissioner, in this article, confirmed that 96 applications were competitively evaluated. I worked with another artist to submit a proposal for this project. I believe the application process was well designed. The difference between a "request for qualifications" and a request for proposals is merely semantic. The Letter of Interest (#1 in the application checklist) asks for a "statement of approach," in which artists made written proposals for the project.

Also available at that public website are agendas from meetings of the public art commission, presentations, and the results of surveys from multiple meetings held for community input. It is not made clear in this article which aspects of the project, specifically, are "cloaked in secrecy and confusion."

I am not convinced by this article that this is an overpriced or poorly planned project.

15 likes, 32 dislikes
Posted by barrywilder on 07/02/2016 at 12:23 PM

Favorite Places

  • None.
Find places »

Saved Events

  • Nada.
Find events »

Saved Stories

  • Nope.
Find stories »

Custom Lists

  • Zip.

Copyright © 2017 Style Weekly
Richmond's alternative for news, arts, culture and opinion
All rights reserved
Powered by Foundation