Flying Squirrels release conceptual renderings of a new ballpark

Almost two months ago, the Richmond Flying Squirrels announced the creation of a citizen advocacy group to lobby for the construction of a new ballpark on the Boulevard. Today the Squirrels released these two conceptual renderings of what a ballpark could look like.

BallparkNutz-Front

Almost two months ago, the Richmond Flying Squirrels announced the creation of a citizen advocacy group to lobby for the construction of a new ballpark on the Boulevard. The Squirrels are willing to contribute a construction-cost share equal to that of contributions made by area jurisdictions. The total cost of the proposed new stadium is estimated to be around $50 million.

Today the Squirrels released these two conceptual renderings of what a ballpark could look like.

Created by Populous, an international design firm specializing in sports architecture, the depicted ballpark reflects a “Richmondesque” design with brick exterior, a grass berm for outfield seating, a children’s play area and fixed seating for as many as 6,500 fans. With the outfield seating, total capacity would be approximately 9,000.

As illustrated, the ballpark is located on the Boulevard, just south of The Diamond’s current site.

Keep in mind that these renderings are both conceptual and hypothetical.

— ∮∮∮ —

— ∮∮∮ —

— ∮∮∮ —

Related

  • error

    Report an error

18 comments on Flying Squirrels release conceptual renderings of a new ballpark

  1. That is a total embarrassment of a design in faux historicist pap and for the firm who created it to call it “Richmondesque” is an amateur pander to our great city – nothing more than a cliche at best. We must do better.

  2. Scott Burger on said:

    Where are the solar panels?

  3. Denny R. on said:

    Scott, solar panels are still very expensive. Maybe by the time construction gets under way, solar panels will be a more cost effective way of producing electricity and they could be considered then.

  4. Scott Burger on said:

    Let me back up a moment.

    What has not been mentioned by most of the media as far as Mayor’s budget priorities is even more money being lavished on the Landmark and Center Stage- thankfully Style did:

    http://www.styleweekly.com/richmond/backstage-taxes/Content?oid=1688889

    Richmond citizens have really been taken advantage of in terms of corporate welfare schemes and Center Stage is one of the biggest. The opportunity costs for citizens are huge and the tourism is still not paying for all the money wasted. The Richmond Renaissance 1% who pushed these projects should be thrown in prison.

    This is a big reason why I have been a critic of past stadium plans. That said, I appreciate what the Flying Squirrels have done to keep baseball alive in Richmond and I am not totally against a new baseball stadium if it can be done in a way that supplies a good return on investment. I think it is pretty telling that it’s the counties that are balking now at making the investment.

    But if Richmond citizens are going to be forced to invest in a new baseball stadium, then that stadium should also have solar power so it can also be used for emergency/disaster recovery site. It should be used to produce clean energy that can be sold back to the grid even when there is not a baseball game.

    The real obstacle here is Dominion Power’ efforts to stymie any attempt at independent, distributed solar power in the state.

    http://endpowermadness.com/stop-blocking-solar-development-in-virginia-start-giving-the-little-guys-a-chance-to-create-jobs?print=1&tmpl=component

    Dominion Power even stopped Washington and Lee University from doing solar:

    http://www.dispatchmarketinginc.com/eNewsletters/RenewableEnergyDispatch/tabid/5585/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/4989/Staunton-solar-firm-faced-utility-challenge.aspx

    At the same time, Dominion Power took in a $76 million bonus:

    http://www.chesapeakeclimate.org/press/ccan-in-the-news/op-eds/dominions-bait-and-switch

    As far as solar baseball stadiums, other localities make it work:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1AkTPKGhi0

    http://www.gunnarelectric.com/folio/cbf/chanballfield.html

    http://gigaom.com/cleantech/major-league-solar-baseball-goes-green/

    http://www.solarnovus.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2202:arizona-baseball-stadium-goes-solar&catid=41:applications-tech-news&Itemid=245

    http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/02/01/137559/baseballs-kansas-city-royals-go.html

  5. @Scott The first thing I thought of when I saw the drawings was “man all that space on top would be a great place for solar panels.” No joke!

  6. Aaron Williams on said:

    Solar thermal or photovoltaic?

  7. greg on said:

    Fairly generic design. Looks like the stadium in Jacksonville, FL that was built around 10 years ago. We can do better.

  8. FORGET THE COUNTIES, GO TO SOME OF THESE CORPRATE GIANTS IN OUR COMMUNITY AND GRANT THEM NAMING RIGHTS, ETC.

  9. Willis on said:

    First off, thank you Scott for reminding everyone of the costs to taxpayers when promises like these get made and also for the links about the solar.

    Second, here is a good read from the Brookings Institute in regards to Sports, Jobs, and Taxes. Let us remember what our priorities are around here please.

    http://www.brookings.edu/articles/1997/summer_taxes_noll.aspx

  10. First Energy Field in PA (Phillies AA) has a pool in the outfield. A POOL. These renderings are nice, but yeah, we could do better. Also, I back the idea of solar panels. If we’re going to build something brand new, we should be breaking new ground and not rehashing an idea right out of the early 2000’s.

  11. Looks like a strip mall with a field in the back. Is that another Chili’s on the corner?

  12. Aldous Snow on said:

    I love baseball but the public should not pay for the new ball park. There are plenty of zillionaires in Virginia who could pony up for a new diamond. Robbins Field sounds good to me. So does Coram Capshaw Field.

    As far as Dominion and solar: a neighbor of mine manages some vast warehouses in Virginia that have about 20 acres of flat roof space. They wanted to cover them in solar panels but it was only cost effective if DP would buy back the power. They wouldn’t, and the project never moved forward.

  13. ben on said:

    Completely agree with solar power- although solar power itself is a two headed monster. it is not as expensive as people say to produce panels, silica is one of the most common compounds on earth so that is not where the expense is coming from (diy solar projects are fairly inexpensive.) Commercial sales are expensive because its a cost vs savings, its more expensive bc you can justify that you will make the money back in savings, tack on what you can make by selling the energy back at a fair market rate such as in jersey and it makes sense. Dominion makes it impossible to make the financials work. Collusion, yes absolutely.
    but goddamn it richmond do something bold, for once.

  14. ben on said:

    Richmondesque? You mean NuevoVCU. at least there are a couple solar panels on VCU buildings.

  15. Scott Burger on said:

    Forgive me for trotting out this three year old statement, but I am concerned that some developers may try to re-animate the Shockoe site proposal-

    http://fallsofthejames.org/post/75992067/sierra-club-opposes-shockoe-stadium-proposal

    I see the Times Dispatch is doing another one of its ‘town hall forums’ tonight on this subject. I urge folks to recognize how this distracts from more important discussions-

    http://www.oregonhill.net/2012/03/25/mayors-budget-discussion-at-the-va-war-memorial-on-wednesday/

    As for solar university buildings, the private University of Richmond is putting more solar up-

    http://thecollegianur.com/2011/05/05/energy-pilots-include-installation-of-ufa-solar-panels/20658/

  16. Would it be reasonably to hypothesize that, once the shine of a new stadium wore off, the people going to the games now would be the same people going to the games in a new stadium? Don’t people go for the game, not the stadium?

    We have a stadium. If people aren’t going to it, it might not be because of the stadium itself, but simple lack of interest in baseball (and I speak as a person who enjoys watching a good game). A new stadium might not solve that beyond a slight increase, which probably would not be enough to warrant the cost.

    And I second Scott’s idea about the solar panels creating a good disaster/recovery spot. In the words of Regretsy, we could use multipurpose!

  17. Josh on said:

    I think Josh McCullar hit the nail on the head. The deaign is flat and is some lame attempt at looking like Richmond distilled down to a few architectural elements. This is not Short Pump or Stony Point mall. Its a baseball stadium, make it look like a baseball stadium.

    Solar panels are great, and probally deserve another article devoted to the risk/reward of energy deregulation. However I’d rather see us talk about FLOODING. Since Gaston many business in the bottom have been saddled with having to pay flood insurance which has made doing business down there costly. Putting in the stadium can relive the flood risks by improving stormwater management, and by serving as a stormwater retention area for 100 year storms.

    But I guess Chesterfield would rather have the tax revenue.

    Speaking of which, when do we repeal the meals tax? Oh right, they need that for something else now that Center Stage is complete…

  18. City Council raised the meal tax by .5% , effectively 1%, to help fund CenterStage. Doug Wilder confiscated that long ago and put it into the General Fund.

Leave a comment

Your comment may be held for moderation and may not appear until manually approved. Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked with an asterisk (*).

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Or report an error instead