Richmond Deserves it All: Development in the Bottom and the Boulevard

Signatures 131 total

Page: 1, 2, 3

1. 1
   Name: Melinda Skinner on Feb 4, 2009

   Comments:

   Flag
2. 2
   Name: Emily Skinner on Feb 4, 2009

   Comments: I deeply support this cause!

   Flag
3. 3
   Name: Lelia Kimball on Feb 4, 2009

   Comments:

   Flag
4. 4
   Name: Greta Bollinger on Feb 4, 2009

   Comments:

   Flag
5. 5
   Name: Bryan Townes on Feb 4, 2009

   Comments:

   Flag
6. 6
   Name: Ernest Skinner on Feb 5, 2009

   Comments:

   Flag
7. 7
   Name: Anonymous on Feb 5, 2009

   Comments:

   Flag
8. 8
   Name: Cathy Herring on Feb 5, 2009

   Comments:

   Flag
9. 9
   Name: Anonymous on Feb 5, 2009

   Comments: As a life long city resident and past city employee, the boulevard is the best place for the new balpark. Easy access to the interstates, ample parking and with the recent development of the boulevard, Scotts Addition and Broad st. What else makes sense.

   Flag
10. 10
    Name: Emmy Siddons on Feb 6, 2009

    Comments:

    Flag
11. 11
    Name: Caryl Burtner on Feb 6, 2009

    Comments:

    Flag
12. 12
    Name: Lisa Williamson on Feb 6, 2009

    Comments: Bad idea to build a new stadium and not renovate The Diamond. Stupid idea to put that type of facility in Shockoe Bottom.

    Flag
13. 13
    Name: Gregory Johnson on Feb 6, 2009

    Comments: Shockoe bottom is an dense urban area that should developed organically as Carytown did. With small investors building upon each other to form a cohesive district. Development should be consistant with the exhisting use. The Boulevard site makes perfect sense for a mixed use development with much of the infrastructure allready in place.

    Flag
14. 14
    Name: Elizabeth Sykes on Feb 6, 2009

    Comments: The Diamond complex is near the interstate, has developable land, has plenty of parking, and is in an industrial area where traffic and noise will not disturb adjacent neighbors. A ball field in Shockoe would create traffic problems, disturb areas residents, and damage historic resources.

    Flag
15. 15
    Name: M Hester Bradshaw on Feb 6, 2009

    Comments:

    Flag
16. 16
    Name: Kathryn F. Talley on Feb 6, 2009

    Comments:

    Flag
17. 17
    Name: Deborah M. Costello, Esq. on Feb 6, 2009

    Comments: Ballpark in Shockoe is an awful idea....I strongly oppose.

    Flag
18. 18
    Name: Susy Meyer on Feb 6, 2009

    Comments: AGREE! Please keep it on the Boulevard.

    Flag
19. 19
    Name: Carol And Bob Hiett on Feb 6, 2009

    Comments: The complexities associated with the proposed Ballpark in Shockoe Bottom are overwhelming--crowding, parking, cultural degradation, historic destruction, just to mention a few. Renovation of the current park is much less complex; often times, simple and easy are the best.

    Flag
20. 20
    Name: Sean Costello on Feb 6, 2009

    Comments: What would be the seating capacity of the Stadium What existing structures would have to be demolished to make way

    Flag
21. 21
    Name: Brooke Saunders on Feb 6, 2009

    Comments: No ballpark in Shockoe Slip!

    Flag
22. 22
    Name: Barbara Munjas on Feb 6, 2009

    Comments:

    Flag
23. 23
    Name: Grace Silverstein on Feb 6, 2009

    Comments:

    Flag
24. 24
    Name: Lisa M. Williams on Feb 6, 2009

    Comments: I have never seen the idea of a ballpark in Shockoe bottom as a good idea. Historically, aesthetically, or as a great addition to the neighborhood, the degree of traffic generated downtown on top of the business traffic already would be ridiculous. Find ways to revitalize the area that fits with the area, not this way which will first need to demolish the fabric that is already there.

    Flag
25. 25
    Name: Anonymous on Feb 6, 2009

    Comments:

    Flag
26. 26
    Name: Diana Jackson on Feb 6, 2009

    Comments: Keep the ballpark on the Boulevard

    Flag
27. 27
    Name: Anonymous on Feb 6, 2009

    Comments: Renovate the DIAMOND on the Boulevard!!

    Flag
28. 28
    Name: Alice McLeod on Feb 6, 2009

    Comments:

    Flag
29. 29
    Name: Scott Boyer on Feb 6, 2009

    Comments: the stupidity and the illogic sellout of an historic district for individual profit (a ball park in the bottom)is at the lowest end of the spectrum while the logical, intelligent, realistic, and equally profit producing idea of renovating, improving and making viable the ideally located ball park we already have is at the high end of the spectrum.

    Flag
30. 30
    Name: Anonymous on Feb 6, 2009

    Comments:

    Flag
31. 31
    Name: Therese C. Howell on Feb 6, 2009

    Comments:

    Flag
32. 32
    Name: Silver Persinger on Feb 6, 2009

    Comments:

    Flag
33. 33
    Name: Sharon Hinson on Feb 6, 2009

    Comments: I do not believe that a large stadium which is usually empty -- or otherwise filling and emptying its patrons all at one time with the resulting traffic problems -- should be located in Shockhoe Center.

    Flag
34. 34
    Name: Darren Green on Feb 6, 2009

    Comments:

    Flag
35. 35
    Name: Pamela McElrath on Feb 6, 2009

    Comments:

    Flag
36. 36
    Name: Sandra Lee Starkey on Feb 6, 2009

    Comments: The Diamond should be renovated and baseball played there rather than in Shockoe Bottom. The Diamond iseasily and safely accessed with ample parking.

    Flag
37. 37
    Name: Adam Ewing on Feb 6, 2009

    Comments:

    Flag
38. 38
    Name: W.L. Davis on Feb 6, 2009

    Comments:

    Flag
39. 39
    Name: PWBauder on Feb 6, 2009

    Comments:

    Flag
40. 40
    Name: Donald Costello on Feb 6, 2009

    Comments:

    Flag
41. 41
    Name: David Lydiard on Feb 6, 2009

    Comments: Times are tough and leaving the ballpark on the Boulevard makes sense. Make sense!

    Flag
42. 42
    Name: Anonymous on Feb 6, 2009

    Comments:

    Flag
43. 43
    Name: Ken Hopson on Feb 6, 2009

    Comments: i despair

    Flag
44. 44
    Name: Kirsten Gray on Feb 6, 2009

    Comments:

    Flag
45. 45
    Name: Anne Jones on Feb 7, 2009

    Comments:

    Flag
46. 46
    Name: Charles Pool on Feb 7, 2009

    Comments: That last flood should have been enough to dampened the idea of shoe-horning a baseball stadium into that flood zone. These developers are all for the idea anyway because they would make money building it and then make money demolishing it after the next flood.

    Flag
47. 47
    Name: James "Turk" Sties on Feb 7, 2009

    Comments:

    Flag
48. 48
    Name: Tess Dixon on Feb 7, 2009

    Comments:

    Flag
49. 49
    Name: Joan Harrup on Feb 7, 2009

    Comments:

    Flag
50. 50
    Name: Scott Burger on Feb 7, 2009

    Comments:

    Flag

Page: 1, 2, 3