• Ricky Blanco

    Should the caption under the photograph in the section titled “Post-War Richmond” (same as title photograph) read “Richmond from Church Hill 1865”; instead of “Richmond from Oregon Hill 1865″…?

    • Ricky – thanks for reading! Its a tricky situation there: the Library of Congress, where that photo is archived, has labeled the photo “Richmond from Oregon Hill”, even though it is actually from Church Hill. So, since I have to cite it in a way so that other people can find it, I have to call it what its called in the archive: http://www.loc.gov/pictures/resource/ppmsca.08222/

  • CRM

    One correction is needed to your text: State funds or permits alone don’t trigger Section 106. There must be federal involvement in a project.

    • thanks for catching that. I think I fixed it, and included some links to the Virginia DHR’s descriptions of the state laws. I appreciate the close read!

  • Pingback: Shockoe redevelopment: on archaeology and the 17th Street Market ‹ CHPN()

  • Pingback: Baseball Stadium News ‹ Shockoe News()

  • Curt Autry

    Fascinating piece of work, I enjoyed reading this.

  • bert

    Thank you for writing this well researched and unbiased piece. It will hopefully go a long way to helping people understand the issues

    • thanks for reading, Bert! This development plan is ferociously complex, and has so many moving parts…I’m hopeful that this will shed some light on one that not many people understand.

  • Pingback: The Shockoe Stadium Plan: Last Night’s Town Hall Meeting | diggingellen()

  • Pingback: terry p brock.com Before It's Too Late: An Education Symposium on the History and Archaeology of Shockoe Bottom » terry p brock.com()

  • Pingback: Archaeology unearths new group of RVA advocates - RVANews()

  • Pingback: UPDATE: Archaeology unearths new group of RVA advocates - RVANews()

  • kazoo

    Excellent post, thank you. It’s complicated. Very complicated. The whole area is “historic,” but it is also now largely an unattractive mess. The city wants and needs to develop the area, or portions of it, to generate revenue. Richmond proper is not very big–that’s a problem for the city (and another issue entirely). You can’t preserve everything that is thought to have some historic value–and what is the definition of “historic”? How much history in New York City and every other old American city is sitting under skyscrapers right now? A lot, surely. You are not going to preserve every plot where there was an auction house, for example, given that there were dozens. I say, do any legally required or morally responsible archeological studies, let a small expert panel decide what should be preserved at all costs, build a proper slavery memorial and move ahead with the development, which seems by and large to not be on known archeologically important sites. This idea that some people having of turning half of the Bottom into a slave-trading memorial and education center is a non-starter, impractical, as you would devoting a huge swath of property to facilities that will generate no money–that in fact would probably lose money. No city has the luxury of doing that. I believe in preservation–but I also think that if an area is worthy of some preservation, then do the work and the studies and get on with it. You can’t do nothing for years–decades—leaving an area in decrepit condition–and then jump up and get hysterical every time a development is proposed. One way or another, it is time to move forward.

  • Pingback: What We're Reading: January 9, 2014()