16 Responses to “Baseball in Manchester?”

1. posted by tvnewsbadge at July 2, 2009 10:26 am [#]:
   

   Now THIS is a plan tht makes sense. There ain’t squat down there now and it’s an area of no known historic value.

   And best of all, unlike other ares in the city, what few residents there are down there will welcome the development with open arms.

   But wasn’t this idea floated before and rejected out hand because South Richmond is held in such disrepute by the other neighborhood communities in River City and if you built it, they won’t come?

2. posted by Phil Licking at July 2, 2009 3:20 pm [#]:
   

   This idea was in the Krupi Report… the one funded by a consortium of local business leaders. Dr. Krupi’s mock up photo was great: looking from home plate to dead-center field you would see the entire city skyline. He also recommended restoring 2-way traffic to downtown streets, more bike-friendly commuting options, etc. It was good stuff.

3. posted by Dan at July 2, 2009 4:04 pm [#]:
   

   I love this idea. It may be pie in the sky at this point but that shouldnt deter our enthusiasm. I recently bought a house on the south side. We need a focal point for new develpoment over here. I think a recreational area/ball park would be ideal. I have a good feeling about this.

4. posted by Nathan at July 2, 2009 6:31 pm [#]:
   

   Being from Pittsburgh, PA and seeing the transformation that PNC Park had on the North Side of Pittsburgh I think it’s a great idea. PNC Park was built in a industrial, run down, crime ridden (Manchester not so bad), vacation lot, warehouse area along the Allegheny River (sound familiar). The area now is a destination filled with housing, museums, restaurants, bars, and shopping. After work I and would walk across one of the bridges out of downtown and head to the park to see a night game several times a season. This location would be great even on a smaller scale, but the critics will tear the idea apart and the politicians will debate it to death leaving us with the crappy Diamond.

   http://www.baseballpilgrimages.com/national/pittsburgh.html

5. posted by Richard.H at July 2, 2009 6:50 pm [#]:
   

   I hadn’t heard of the Crupi report so do a bit of Google and found it. It is a very interesting read too bad that none of the recommendations have been acted on. You can find the report here: http://www.grcc.com/files/Putting_The_Future_Together_FINAL.pdf

6. posted by David at July 2, 2009 7:13 pm [#]:
   

   The original idea was rejected out of hand because it did not involve any: 1) property owners; 2) investors; 3) developers; 4) elected officials.
   It simply doesn’t work to throw ideas at a wall and see if they stick. It takes work and money. Reynolds certainly has one, and seems willing to discuss providing the other. As a starting point; reynolds donates the 9 acres in a 99 year lease. The city covers the costs of infrastructure on the whole site. City Economic Development coordinates team ownership package that is willing to pay full payments in lieun of taxes on the site.
   But for curiosity, has anyone spent this much time on thinking about how to pay for maintenance of city parks, city schools, city streets, curbs and drains? I know some of the posters on this site. Isn’t the quality of life at least as important as baseball?

7. posted by tvnewsbadge at July 2, 2009 8:03 pm [#]:
   

   Re#6

   Well, nobody said anything about the city taxpayers having to foot the bill.
   Thats a horse of a different color.
   Until the proponents of baseball in Richmond can PROVE there’s a SELF-SUSTAINING market for same (which they so far have refused to do ), then of course NO city funds should be used.

8. posted by Stephanie at July 2, 2009 11:52 pm [#]:
   

   Why does Richmond *need* a ball team?

   I’d rather see public funds invested in other ‘quality of life’ endeavors, rather than in sports venues that only attract a narrow segment of the citizenry. These ideas to attract suburbanites to downtown aren’t successful because of the bass-ackwards approach. Instead of focusing on making the city more livable (good schools, safe streets, etc.)developers shift the focus to pie-in-the-sky promises of revenue-generating boondoggles that end up siphoning off taxpayer dollars. How about we try to stanch the flow of families that head to the suburbs when their kids reach school age? If we can’t keep the people we have living here, here, then how the heck are we going to attract people from outside the city?

9. posted by Robert at July 3, 2009 12:01 am [#]:
   

   Sounds interesting – I’ve known Reynolds/ ALCOA was looking to get land off their hands and sell it to the highest bidder for a while. A few local civil engineering companies are looking at the old automation plant next to Riverfront Towers on Byrd for development too. If (huge if) it’s decided put a ballpark here – parking security better be tight. There are bums around Shockoe Bottom that will saw out your car’s catalytic converter and sell it to the metal recycler on Hull in Manchester. Catalytic converters have platinum = cash for weed, booze, smack – whatever their fix is.

10. posted by tvnewsbadge at July 3, 2009 8:27 am [#]:
    

    “Why does Richmond *need* a ball team?”
    And that’s the big question that no one seems to want to answer.
    I have no dog in this hunt, but I think it’s reasonable when vaucuming the wallets of hard pressed taxpayers to be required to at least demonstrate that there is a market for the product, but until now, at least, the proponents remain strangely silent.

11. posted by Heather at July 3, 2009 12:33 pm [#]:
    

    I miss baseball in Richmond.
    I would love to hop on the grtc and catch a game.
    I just hope nobody jacks my catalytic convert from in front of my house while I am away,

12. posted by Phil Licking at July 4, 2009 7:57 am [#]:
    

    Well said, David. What is Ralph White’s full-time staff up to now… 5 people? How many acres is JRPS… 500? Give some TLC to the parks. If there’s a market for baseball in Richmond it will happen via that old invisible hand.

13. posted by Scott Burger at July 6, 2009 11:23 am [#]:
    

    http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/07/worlds-greenest-most-elegant-stadium-taiwan-toyo-ito.php

14. posted by Jessica at July 6, 2009 12:22 pm [#]:
    

    My one concern is this – in this time where we all propose green technology, recycling, etc…why do we continue to entertain options that could very well create more waste? Not to mention the fact that Richmond has enough areas of “urban blight” – by abandoning the diamond, we will be contributing even further to this problem.

    As a native Richmonder, though by no means a sports fanatic, I have warm memories of the diamond. Especially as Independence Day passed and I remembered the great fireworks spectacular there once was.

15. posted by Shennen Dean at July 7, 2009 1:24 pm [#]:
    

    City money would be better spent on improving schools so its residents could better afford to go to a game. Or am I the only one who thinks our schools’ facilities need monetary help?

16. posted by Matt at July 8, 2009 11:35 am [#]:
    

    Baseball in Manchester sounds to good to be true. Would be too cool to be able to walk to a game. What a bonus that would be for the Southside and its nearby businesses. I’ll keep dreamin….

    PS- This just in: The Diamond stinks!! It’s dull and dilapidated. Completely uninteresting. That site can easily be converted into a mixed use development as proposed by Highwoods. It’s time for an interesting, riverfront ballpark in an up and coming urban setting…..as has worked wondefully in other similarly sized cities.

Leave a Comment