You are here
Home > Ankle Biter > Manchester Neighborhood Plan Implementation Grade: F

Manchester Neighborhood Plan Implementation Grade: F

The City of Richmond adopted a Neighborhood Plan for Old Manchester in 1996 as part of the City’s Master Plan. The strategic plan was intended to be a blueprint for the City that would set forth the revitalization of Manchester, yet be flexible enough to allow adaptation as the area developed. The plan explicitly called for the City to take the lead in spearheading Manchester’s revitalization:

“The City should take a proactive approach and demonstrate its commitment to the revitalization of Old Manchester by implementing key public improvements and orchestrating initial rehabilitation efforts.”

We thought it would be interesting to see how the city has done on the implementation of its plan since it was established in 1996. Here are each of the public priorities as outlined in the plan and the Dogtown Dish’s grade.

Neighborhood Plan Line Item Grades

If you have been to Manchester recently, the number of failing grades are no surprise to you. Frankly, the revitalization that has happened recently in Manchester has been despite the City, not because of it. As a result, we score the City of Richmond’s Implementation of its Manchester Revitalization Plan as Adopted in 1996 with an overall Grade of F.

Screen Shot 2016-06-12 at 11.30.34 AM

62 thoughts on “Manchester Neighborhood Plan Implementation Grade: F

... and 40 more


  1. The lack of progress over such an extended time period of time is discouraging for sure.But I’m not sure the “Overnight Transportation” line item warranted an “F”. An “F” would be if Overnight was still the owner and letting the land sit idle. You spoke favorably of Miller and Gecker as stewards of this land in your March 13th post. Seems like a “B” to me. “C” at worst.

    1. The reason for the F was solely because the City’s intent was to acquire the land. It failed in that regard. Mr. Cochrane of Overnight Transportation decided to give it away to VMFA, rather than see it end up in the City’s hands. That actually probably worked out for the best, but was absolutely not the City’s intent per the plan. Hence the reason for the F as a score relative to their stated objective. I agree this actually turned out far better in the end, because the City failed and wasn’t able to get ahold of it and screw it up.

Comments

Top