A Grand Unified Vision for Richmond’s Future

Ashland Mayor Faye Prichard places a stack of yellow Legos on her home town.
Ashland Mayor Faye Prichard places a stack of yellow Legos on her home town.

by James A. Bacon

By 2035 the Richmond region will grow by roughly 200,000 households (435,000 people) and 200,000 new jobs. That’s a mind-numbing number for a metropolitan region with barely more than 1 million inhabitants today. But, assuming the forecast is valid, where those people wind up living and working will have a dramatic impact on the livability and fiscal sustainability of the region.

Where should they go? The Richmond chapter of the Urban Land Institute (ULI) hosted a Reality Check visioning exercise today in which teams of participants got to play God (or dictator) and decide where the housing and jobs should be located. The idea was to stimulate thinking about the choices the region faces in the years ahead. Participants indicated their priorities by placing Legos on a detailed map of the region, with each blue block representing 156 jobs and each yellow block 312 housing units. (There were also tan blocks for low-density housing.)

As readers of Bacon’s Rebellion know, I have a number of pronounced opinions on the subject. To avoid the temptation of launching into extended pronunciamentos on the subject of growth management or, worse, lunging across the table and snatching Legos from the hands of team mates, I attended as a mere observer. That’s just as well for, judging from what I witnessed, I might have popped from frustration.

An urban vision for Richmond's future.
An urban vision for Richmond’s future.

While there were a number of well-informed people in attendance — I chatted with two Richmond City Council members, two senior Chesterfield County administrators, two well-known developers and a prominent land-use attorney — most of the attendees were interested local citizens. Citizen input is exceedingly important. But most citizens are ignorant of the economics, politics and fiscal realities of land use and transportation, and I found that ignorance, shall I say… frustrating.

At the same time, I found the basic instincts of the 300 or so participants to be sound. Most of the 10-person teams supported a far more compact, urban-focused development than has prevailed in the past. Richmond has been the fastest-sprawling region in Virginia, much to its detriment. If business, political and civic leaders heed the voices of the Reality Check participants, the region will head in a very different direction.

There were no  "sprawl" visions for Richmond's future -- this was as close as it got.
There were no “sprawl” visions for Richmond’s future — this was as close as it got.

Reality Check took place in the basketball arena of Virginia Commonwealth University’s Siegel Center. Each team was arrayed around its own table containing a large map of the Richmond region showing building densities and transportation arteries overlaid by a grid of 1/4-square mile squares. The maps depicted no political boundaries. The idea was to treat the region as a single organic unit.

The first step in the exercise was to articulate guiding principles. The big themes running through the sessions included conservation of natural resources, with particular attention to the James River, regional cooperation, preservation of historic assets and mixed use development.

As I wandered from table to table, I observed a surprising commonality in thinking. Each table stacked up Legos on downtown Richmond, already the densest part of the region: both blue for commercial development and, in a departure from current reality, yellow for housing. The Innsbrook office park in western Henrico, now purely commercial, was marked consistently as a second node for mixed-use development. Chesterfield County got lots more medium-density housing. What hardly anyone found appealing was-low density sprawl. If these 300 participants had their way, the development frontier of the Richmond region would not advance one meter in over the next two decades.

An infrastructure-intensive vision for Richmond's future
An infrastructure-intensive vision for Richmond’s future

Players got to demarcate road upgrades and mass transit routes by laying down orange and blue string. Admittedly, this was an exercise in visioning, not serious planning, but some groups seemed oblivious to basic fiscal principles. First, transportation infrastructure is extraordinarily expensive and, second, you don’t plan a light rail line without planning density around the friggin’ stations!

As Sidney Gunst, developer of the original Innsbrook Office Park and a devotee of Ayn Rand’s philosophy of limited government, observed, Reality Check is an exercise in collectivist thinking. Neither supply and demand nor cost and fiscal limits provided any constraint. Yet he seemed to enjoy himself nonetheless.

After the session was over, VCU students compiled the number of blue and yellow Legos placed on each grid cell on each map. The results will be entered into a spreadsheet and used to replicate a grand unified vision. ULI-Richmond will disseminate the findings to stimulate further discussion of Richmond’s land use future.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

23 responses to “A Grand Unified Vision for Richmond’s Future”

  1. The Tysons Land Use Task Force conducted similar exercises, but ignored the residents’ views altogether. Let’s hope things go better in Richmond.

  2. larryg Avatar

    We had one of these down Fredericksburg way a few years back and I had the same frustration.

    I also hold the organizers (they call themselves “facilitators”) responsible for, want of a better word, manipulating attendees to reach certain outcomes – where ignorance of certain realities is involved.

    I’ve seen several of these and everyone ends up with the citizens “densifying” areas in an effort to “save” the surrounding countryside from “development”.

    Things they do not address: stormwater runoff from impervious surfaces – which is as or more damaging to the environment that even sprawl is.

    In the one I attended – no existing parkland or historic or natural resources were well delineated. creek and riverine corridors were not represented very well nor was terrain.

    I just found the “managing” of the exercise to be – to me – condescending of citizens and a bit offensive.

  3. DJRippert Avatar
    DJRippert

    Put down the lego and pick up the spreadsheets. Urban living in relatively low crime neighborhoods is very expensive. Here’s a nice 4,300 sq ft home on a bit less that half an acre in Northwest Washington, DC for $1.75M. Note: I had to scroll through 10 pages of higher prices homes (10 to a page) to get to this one.

    http://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-detail/3600-Albemarle-St-Nw_Washington_DC_20008_M67852-44058?row=96

    Median wages have been stagnant since the late 1970s in the US. Unless there is some reason that safe urban living is going to decrease dramatically in cost there will be no mass migration into the cities.

    1. Put down your spreadsheet and pick up a copy of any Economics 101 textbook. The reason urban living in low-crime neighborhoods is so expensive is that walkable urbanism is so scarce. People just aren’t building enough of it to keep up with demand. The walkable urbanism does not have to be located in center cities like Washington, D.C. or the City of Richmond. Many people would be fine to enjoy such accommodations in Fairfax or Henrico Counties. As long as we continue doing business as usual, however, the supply and demand equation will get even more out of kilter, the price discrepancy between walkable urbanism and drivable suburbanism will get even bigger, and Don Rippert will talk even more volubly about how “unaffordable” it is!

      1. larryg Avatar

        re: ” The reason urban living in low-crime neighborhoods is so expensive is that walkable urbanism is so scarce. People just aren’t building enough of it to keep up with demand. ”

        why? if there is demand for it then why doesn’t the market respond?

        this is sort of like the “affordable housing” conundrum. There’s a huge demand for it but it does not get built.

        1. Why doesn’t walkable urbanism get built? I refer you to my post of two days ago:

          “Leinberger, a developer himself, fully acknowledges the large obstacles to what he calls “walkable urbanism.” Outside core cities, zoning codes across the country still outlaw urban forms of development. Any developer wanting to build a mixed-use project must run a protracted, expensive and risky process to obtain a special use permit. Standard sprawl-style development is still the default setting. Making the problem worse, Leinberger says, is the fact that Wall Street, which bankrolls the Real Estate Investment Trusts and publicly traded development companies, still prefers commodified real estate products — the 19 standard real estate product types — prevalent in green-field development. Developers who want to do in-fill or re-development, which by their nature consist of one-off projects, find it much more difficult to raise money. Finally, federal policy continues to favor single family dwellings. As Smart Growth America has documented, 84% of the $2.2 trillion in loans, loan guarantees, tax benefits and direct subsidies that the federal government directed to the real estate sector between Fiscal 2007 and 2011 went to single family housing.”

          1. larryg Avatar

            re: outside of core cities

            question: should smart growth/new urbanism be done in exurban communities?

            re: 84% – loans, loan guarantees, tax benefits, direct subsidies – from the Federal govt

            something I’m not aware of but like to see it…. is it really “directed” to SFH or does SFH receive it because that is what is built?

            for instance, there is no Federal policy that requires that mortgage loan interest deductions be only for SFH in greenfield development as far as I know – it’s just that’s what the market wants…

            isn’t that the real issue? that the market wants SFH in greenfield locales in part because it’s more affordable to buyers, especially, first time buyers?

            Smart Growth/New Urbanism by it’s nature is infrastructure intensive and more expensive than greenfield development.

            how would you change that in an unfettered market without the govt setting rules and requirements?

  4. Andrea Epps Avatar
    Andrea Epps

    Well now Jim, you should have come over to table 9 and said hello! Honestly, I could have used your help. But, Mr. Hilbert seemed get it, so I was grateful. Dorothy understands as well.
    I put a rail line from the city clear to (what would be) Williamsburg…AND added density nodes to support it. The rail line already exists, and the geography fits…well, we’ll see 😉

    1. Andrea, if only I’d known, I certainly would have looked you up… and inspected your handicraft!

    2. larryg Avatar

      I thought the whole idea of reality check was to build in situ places that did not need heavy duty commuter infrastructure – be it road or rail.

      I’m not sure commuter rail is much different than commuter roads because both end up with sprawl subdivisions

      we have this same issue in Fredericksburg with VRE – commuter rail.

      to be fair some folks live in downtown Fredericksburg and commute to jobs in NoVa but many get in their cars at the commuter rail station and drive 1o miles to their traditional subdivision.

      the reality check folks said to make housing more dense about the VRE stations but people won’t choose to live in those dense nodes if they can drive 10 miles to a subdivision.

      I’m not denigrating. This is a tough problem. It’s simply too easy and profitable to build sprawl subdivisions and we all agree we should prevent people from buying – and developers from supplying – what they really want.

      commuter rail actually works to de-populate the core city at night.
      that’s a problem in some parts of downtown Richmond right now – no one in their right mind would dare walk some parts of Richmond at night.

      1. larryg Avatar

        oops/errata: ” … we all agree we should [NOT] prevent people from buying..where and what they want…..

  5. Darrell Avatar
    Darrell

    My wife and I have a grand unified vision. Google the word Paraw. That’s about as urban as we want.

  6. Andrea Epps Avatar
    Andrea Epps

    I can appreciate Larrys point. However, the purpose of the entire day was to “be as bold as possible”. In my little perfect world, we would have light rail, with density in the proper locations and thus NO sprawl. I realize that means that local BOS’s would actually need to deny a rezoning from time to time, but what the hell…It’s bold, it would save energy, and money 😉

  7. accurate Avatar
    accurate

    Yeah, they did something similar in Portland about 10 years ago. They predicted an influx of 200,000 people (or some high number). So they started building apartment complexes, they installed light rail, they tried (and somewhat succeeded) in applying all sorts of ‘smart growth’ nonsense. Guess what? The population only grew by 3%, rather than the 20%+ that had been forecast. Sure, there are the folks who LOVE living in little tiny apartments and pat themselves on the back for being so hip, so urban, so eco-friendly – and then there are the rest of us.

    In Portland they made a mistake, they are paying a price for making the mistake. The price is higher prices, less people buying into the higher prices, subsidizing the heck out of mass transit (light rail, bus and streetcar – none of which can stand on it’s own). It’s the equivilent of what if you gave a party but no one came. I hope Richmond doesn’t make the same mistake, however, mostly appears to be a bunch of ‘smart-growth’ people telling each other how fantastic they are and aren’t they great for telling the rest of us little people how and where we will live. From my experience, a really bad idea.

  8. reed fawell III Avatar
    reed fawell III

    Accurate – this is a priceless comment – it expresses what I have long suspected but, since I have not been to Portland since the early stone age, I have by and large kept my mouth shut on Portland. Hopefully you’re elaborate further, should the occasion arise on this website.

  9. larryg Avatar

    Reed, Accurate is 100% totally opposed to Smart Growth! I thought you were in favor of it?

    what gives?

    1. reed fawell III Avatar
      reed fawell III

      Actually Larry I do not subscribe to what I believe to be ideologically driven smart growth – that is growth by narrow diktat and closely refined rules that fail to give the human spirit, including the spirit of the entrepreneur, room to prosper and grow by giving people the opportunity to make their own choices among a wide variety of options – doing what works best for them. So its a smart growth that open opportunity, not one that takes choices away from people, and enforces certain behavior based on the flavor of the day. What I describe to is what I saw build Arlington’s new downtown. If you look back at some of my longer pieces you will pick up the difference.

      1. reed fawell III Avatar
        reed fawell III

        Most particularly it is growth that builds an engine of prosperity using the free market system of individual choice, and a place where business, and all sorts of human endeavor, can thrive. I have long suspected that Portland choked off all this potential, largely because I suspected those driving it did not understand business, how it works, or what it needs to thrive and grow.

  10. larryg Avatar

    I read your longer pieces Reed.. I just don’t get them sometimes.

    I just don’t think Smart Growth is a non-govt driven settlement pattern.

    I think govt has to have a role in it.

    But Accurate is opposed to it as a settlement pattern – no matter how it comes about and he too believes it’s govt-directed. I’m sure you picked that up reading him…

    Houston where he lives now has very unrestricted rules for development, and in theory, the ideal situation for a private sector initiative for whatever the market wants… and the market in Houston is not asking for Smart Growth.

    I’ve probably spoken more than I should for Accurate but I think got it right in the large.

    1. reed fawell III Avatar
      reed fawell III

      “I think govt has to have a role in it.”

      So do I.

  11. reed fawell III Avatar
    reed fawell III

    I suspect Accurate and I agree on much more that he and I realize.

    Don’t know that for a fact, of course, but I sensed it from the start. As the Iron Lady said, “I think we can do business with this guy.”

  12. larryg Avatar

    I’d should let Accurate speak for himself but I guess the idea that someone would be opposed to the govt on a spectrum on issues “fits” with also being opposed to Smart Growth – those positions are consistent.

    what’s inconsistent in my view is holding the anti-govt position in general and still supporting efforts by govt to support Smart Growth which most anti-govt folks view as govt social engineering.

    It’s my contrarian nature to observe apparent inconsistencies and contradictions in views.

    that’s separate from my own held philosophies with respect to govt and other quasi-govt institutions.

    In other words consistency in one’s position is a virtue even if it’s a political spectrum I don’t hew to.

    It’s inconsistent positions or ones that appear to be inconsistent that get my focus – in part, because, such inconsistencies are incongruent with held positions if not reconciled. In other words, it’s difficult to hold a position that opposes govt in general – except when it benefits you or vice versa.

    it’s hard to be opposed to how govt works but then be in favor of govt-produced roads. or opposed to govt zoning and regulations but in favor of
    govt efforts to support smart growth.

    these things need to be explained.. explainable – in my view.

    and I do not purport to be a paragon of consistency either but I hold myself to the same standard that if I hold a position that is seemingly inconsistent, I need to resolve and reconcile it – to be able to explain it not only to my satisfaction but others …

    1. Larry, the principled conservative position on Smart Growth (in other words, *my* position on Smart Growth) can be summed up thusly: The phenomenon of “suburban sprawl” was caused largely (though not exclusively) by systemic government intrusions into the real estate marketplace — zoning, regulations, subsidies, etc. — at the state, local and federal levels of government. Rolling back those intrusions will give rise to new human settlement patterns that in many ways will resemble Smart Growth. Before we go about enacting a whole bunch of new laws, regulations and subsidies to achieve Smart Growth, let’s try rolling back the laws, regulations and subsidies that caused sprawl (stupid growth) in the first place.

      Thus, is it entirely rational for people like Reed and myself to support Smart Growth while also being distrustful of government as the mechanism for getting us there.

Leave a Reply