Note: This story has been updated with a statement from stadium consultant Machete Group received after publication.
The new home of the Richmond Flying Squirrels is coming into fuller view via updated renderings recently submitted to the city.
Images provided to Richmond’s Urban Design Committee for initial review before they go to the Planning Commission provide a clearer picture of the new stadium that’s set to replace The Diamond and anchor the larger mixed-use Diamond District development.
The renderings by new stadium designer LaBella show the 10,000-seat ballpark with various amenities and seating options designed to provide the “360-degree experience” that Flying Squirrels execs have said they want to provide fans. The images update earlier renderings that were submitted to the city in March.
LaBella took over the design after the ballclub worked out an arrangement to take the lead on the stadium’s development, working with consultant Machete Group. The original concepts were drawn up by previous designer DLR Group.
In a statement to BizSense, Machete Group principal David Carlock said additional imagery and renderings are to be released soon.
“The images provided to the Urban Design Committee are only screen shots of the architect’s internal 3D model. We have prepared and are finalizing a series of true renderings, as well as a fly through video, that provide a much richer sense of how the new home of the Squirrels will look and feel,” Carlock said. “We look forward to sharing those materials in the very near term and appreciate the community’s strong enthusiasm for the project.”
The latest renderings show the stadium with upper-level suites above open-air seating and amenities around the ballfield, including an outfield play area for kids and families, terraced lawn seating, a beer garden, party deck, barbecue picnic area, and an east-side main entrance opening out to the Diamond District’s planned central park.
A site plan shows the locations for different amenities in the ballpark. (City documents)
A project narrative included with the images states the new ballpark will “stand among the most dynamic and exciting minor league baseball venues in the country” and have “an industrial, warehouse feel meant to pay homage to Richmond’s railway lineage.”
“In addition to Squirrels games, the venue will host a broad array of events, from concerts and movie nights to holiday parties and charity galas,” the narrative reads.
The yet-to-be-named stadium is projected to cost upwards of $110 million and will be funded by $130 million in general obligation bonds that the city secured in a bond sale last month. The stadium bonds are to be paid using tax revenue generated by the surrounding $2.4 billion Diamond District development, which is expected to break ground this month.
Bulldozers and dump trucks were active leveling dirt on the stadium site last week. (BizSense file photo)
The arrangement for the Flying Squirrels to lead the stadium development has positioned Gilbane Building Co., in association with Prestige Construction Group, as the project’s contractor. Initial work on the site got underway in recent weeks, and construction on the stadium is scheduled to start this fall.
The city is aiming for the stadium to be completed and open in time for the 2026 baseball season, to satisfy facility standards required by Major League Baseball for all pro baseball venues.
Richmond’s Urban Design Committee is an 11-member body that advises the Planning Commission on the design of projects on city property or right-of-way. According to the documents, the UDC “provides advice of an aesthetic nature” to the commission, which provides a final vote on what’s called a final location, character and extent review.
The UDC is scheduled to conduct its review at its next meeting this Thursday. City planning staff is recommending approval.
Note: This story has been updated with a statement from stadium consultant Machete Group received after publication.
The new home of the Richmond Flying Squirrels is coming into fuller view via updated renderings recently submitted to the city.
Images provided to Richmond’s Urban Design Committee for initial review before they go to the Planning Commission provide a clearer picture of the new stadium that’s set to replace The Diamond and anchor the larger mixed-use Diamond District development.
The renderings by new stadium designer LaBella show the 10,000-seat ballpark with various amenities and seating options designed to provide the “360-degree experience” that Flying Squirrels execs have said they want to provide fans. The images update earlier renderings that were submitted to the city in March.
LaBella took over the design after the ballclub worked out an arrangement to take the lead on the stadium’s development, working with consultant Machete Group. The original concepts were drawn up by previous designer DLR Group.
In a statement to BizSense, Machete Group principal David Carlock said additional imagery and renderings are to be released soon.
“The images provided to the Urban Design Committee are only screen shots of the architect’s internal 3D model. We have prepared and are finalizing a series of true renderings, as well as a fly through video, that provide a much richer sense of how the new home of the Squirrels will look and feel,” Carlock said. “We look forward to sharing those materials in the very near term and appreciate the community’s strong enthusiasm for the project.”
The latest renderings show the stadium with upper-level suites above open-air seating and amenities around the ballfield, including an outfield play area for kids and families, terraced lawn seating, a beer garden, party deck, barbecue picnic area, and an east-side main entrance opening out to the Diamond District’s planned central park.
A site plan shows the locations for different amenities in the ballpark. (City documents)
A project narrative included with the images states the new ballpark will “stand among the most dynamic and exciting minor league baseball venues in the country” and have “an industrial, warehouse feel meant to pay homage to Richmond’s railway lineage.”
“In addition to Squirrels games, the venue will host a broad array of events, from concerts and movie nights to holiday parties and charity galas,” the narrative reads.
The yet-to-be-named stadium is projected to cost upwards of $110 million and will be funded by $130 million in general obligation bonds that the city secured in a bond sale last month. The stadium bonds are to be paid using tax revenue generated by the surrounding $2.4 billion Diamond District development, which is expected to break ground this month.
Bulldozers and dump trucks were active leveling dirt on the stadium site last week. (BizSense file photo)
The arrangement for the Flying Squirrels to lead the stadium development has positioned Gilbane Building Co., in association with Prestige Construction Group, as the project’s contractor. Initial work on the site got underway in recent weeks, and construction on the stadium is scheduled to start this fall.
The city is aiming for the stadium to be completed and open in time for the 2026 baseball season, to satisfy facility standards required by Major League Baseball for all pro baseball venues.
Richmond’s Urban Design Committee is an 11-member body that advises the Planning Commission on the design of projects on city property or right-of-way. According to the documents, the UDC “provides advice of an aesthetic nature” to the commission, which provides a final vote on what’s called a final location, character and extent review.
The UDC is scheduled to conduct its review at its next meeting this Thursday. City planning staff is recommending approval.
Seems like a rather underwhelming design given the price tag. But I’m sure a patio with a sign for a beer garden is enough to excite some…
The Beercene, a sub-epoch of the Anthropocene, will be interpreted in the future as an illogical and inexplicable dedication of wealth, resources, and time towards imbibing brews. Where a certain demographic strata is placated and pacified via alcohol.
I have mentioned this before and I don’t see it in the renderings yet but would love to see an all season sports bar overlooking the field, even the outfield would be fine. Picture a large patio with roll up glass garage doors to have the outdoor feel in good weather. Maybe even detached from the rest of the facility where you can’t roam the rest of the grounds but you could watch a game from the outfield patio. Work out a reasonable rent and let a professional restaurateur (example: Wood and Iron although it makes not sense to have… Read more »
I expect better. Much better. Just blah. There’s nothing here that makes it Richmond. Please do better, we’ve been waiting along time for this, and this is what we get? You’re on the railroad, why no connection to the rail, both physical and visual? Open up home plate concourse to the rail, imagine train whistles as they pass.
Did you miss the “Boxcar Brewery” in a steel cargo container?
Shipping containers are generally associated with Highway or Sea transport, lesser so with Rail. Richmond was once home to Overnite transport, I’m not sure I-95 is the look they are going for, and the Port, while cool in it’s own right, is not at the fore front of Richmond’s persona. I suppose by labeling a shipping container a “Boxcar” is clearly poor attempt at the connection. Recommend google box car for a proper representation of a boxcar.
I’ve read all the posts criticizing the architecture—particilarly those of my friend Will Hazel who has traveled to about 50 such venues—and I do not agree. I like what I’m seeing here and I think it’s going to be a wonderful addition to the City. I hope one day we learn that the Nationals have their AAA team in Richmond and we get teams from Savannah, Jacksonville and Charleston to visit us.
I wouldn’t hold my breath Bruce on a AAA team. Richmond left a bad taste in the MLBs mouth with the Braves debacle and the city nearly lost the Squirrels as well. I doubt the RVA is high on any sports list because of our city government’s ineptitude.
Most entities don’t hold a grudge as long as residents of the Home of 6th Street Marketplace.
An Atlanta suburb built a ballpark for the Braves affiliate 20 miles from their home team. That’s why they left Richmond. Proximity. They now average half the attendance of our AA team. The Nationals need a AAA ballpark near their home base as well. Here it is.
I think that’s a bit of a stretch. Richmond dragged their feet for years for a new stadium for the R Braves which really forced their hand to look elsewhere. The city has nearly done the same with the Squirrels which has come down to threats from the MLB to build a new stadium or lose the team. I feel that has a lot more to do with it than having the AAA team down the road from Atlanta.
Will Hazel sounds like someone with expertise on the issue
I consider myself a baseball fan but I don’t really differentiate any longer between AA or AAA. I wouldn’t go see any more games if they were AAA and for the most part, for the 6-8 games I attend a year the opponent really doesn’t matter. Unless somebody is down on a rehab assignment, the casual fan won’t recognize any of the players on the opposing teams unless they were also a big time college baseball fan. I think most people just enjoy the experience of taking in a minor league ball game at a reasonable cost.
You are wrong about the players. If a top prospect can prove themselves in AA then they know they can probably put them on the 40 man roster after or before a stint in AAA.
You will see more prospects in AA than AAA. These days AAA teams are typically made up of players that are better than an AA player, but will most likely never go to the Majors and be a AAA career player. Many prospects jump from AA to MLB never spending time with a AAA club. Personally, I’d rather keep AA here. I would like it if the Squirrels were affiliated with a team in the same time zone as us though.
I’ve heard the same thing about top quality prospects jumping AAA, but I suspect the overall quality of team play is better the higher one goes in the minors. I just don’t know that as fact.
It’s nice. But it doesn’t look like Richmond. It looks like Anywhere USA.
It has all the local charm and distinctiveness of an airport terminal. $110M corporate welfare for glorified high school baseball.
Wrong. As an example, the top prospect in all of baseball was Holliday but not now he’s starting for the Baltimore Orioles and doing well now. He had stints in Baltimore’s single A, AA and AAA teams. You grow a young player. A strong player could be on a 40 man roster in AA.
what would make it look like Richmond, a Capitol portico, repurposed statues as foul poles, a flooded field like the old one on Mayo Island, splintered wooden seats like Parker Field? these are conceptual renderings for scale purposes – give it time
Ugh – those splintered wooden seats at Parker Field – and that God-awful green-painted metal “flooring” underneath those seats. If I had a dime for every skinned knee, cut elbow, etc. I got at Parker Field as a kid…🙄
I remember reading that one of the biggest complaints about the existing stadium is that upon entering you have to go up all those stairs to the main concourse. Hard to tell in this rendering, but it doesn’t look that different. If this is what we are getting, I really don’t understand why the existing stadium couldn’t be renovated for much cheaper. Can’t be that hard to add a beer garden (aka concrete slab) in the outfield and a pretty lame jungle gym set.
The renderings seem to imply that you enter on the amenities level, with the field slightly submerged below you. Seating and suites rise above all of that.
Those are old renderings before VM cut most of the veneer out due to budget concerns
The plan is lacking . . . at best. Surrounding your stadium with a sea of asphalt parking speaks to a suburban mentality, not the energy or excitement of urban athletic endeavor. If you seek to create a gateway entry – where? Why are there two front door locations? Why is there no greeting, or sense of arrival from Arthur Ashe Blvd? What gets your heart pounding? Why is a “Festival Street” dependent upon “Future Development”. If something is important – do it now. Simple planning objectives appear muddled and lack focus. So, before a debate on a noteworthy architectural… Read more »
The sea of asphalt won’t be around long. Checkout the Diamond District site plans. Most if not all the parking will be within garages. That’s when the real complaints will begin. I’ve yet to see a “pretty” garage.
Not bad, but I hope the designs aren’t indicative of the final tree and landscaping plan. More shade, please — summer games are just gonna get hotter.
Again, the City has committed to be on the hook for $130 million, and it’s all systems go, but there are no accurate renderings of exactly what is to be built. Last week we learned that there were no signed leases for the entities renting the stadium, the supposed source of the revenue to pay the interest on the bond debt. The City is a clown show.
I like that it’s new, but agree with other posters, it feels bland and soulless.
What would satisfy all of you “It doesn’t scream Richmond” folks? Offer solutions instead of complaints.
And why does a minor league ball park have to scream “Richmond” anyway? What about the diamond screams “Richomond?” The ugly Concrete? The crappy restrooms?
My main complaint is the field. It has no character. A unique field will create great plays. The game in play is the most important thing.
The field design is scripted by MLB. They want uniformity. There will no longer be Green Monsters or Ivy covered walls.
MLB took over and created guidelines for MILB ballparks not field design. Go to a Durham Bulls game or Google it. Check out the left field with the high fence. Also a great area for kids to catch long batting practice hits.
I don’t know that it’s “50” because I haven’t kept exacting records but I’m an avid baseball fan who has seen games in the stadiums of many major league teams & every level of the minors. I have seen games from the stands & the dugout as an asst coach on my son’s travel teams in multiple college & unaffiliated minor league stadiums. To me, one knowledgeable baseball fan who, like I assume most of the commenters, has no architecture degree or history in stadium development or project management, this stadium looks great and a major upgrade in every way.… Read more »
The most sensible post in this long debate IMO.
The justification that something is modestly better than what preceded it is how Richmond projects get constructed to a low bar standard that just value engineers any unique features out of design to maximize profit for private developers. I won’t give a pass to a $130 million dollar project being boring simply because it will have more women’s bathrooms or a beer patio… The recent renovation of Kanawa Plaza is an abomination with no shade or programmed uses that would make people want to linger there. Monroe Park – what did they spend money on when renovating? Crushed gravel pathways… Read more »
A large contingent of your audience (build anything baby, build!) would place this tedious office building for baseball hopefuls up with Craven Cottage in terms of charm if given the opportunity.
If a Sheetz was placed beyond left field (my goodness!), they would consider it a rival to Hotspur Stadium in terms of grandeur.
“..the notion of progress… without goal or limit seems perhaps the most parochial notion of a very parochial century”
-L. Mumford
Many of the projects you point to as “failures” are public and/or city owned projects. While the City is intimately involved here, the ball park and Diamond District are commercial endeavors. As far as Richmond not creating anything successful, look at the overall vibrancy of Scott’s Addition. They’re recently added several new parcels that greatly expand the James River Park. Venues like The National are thriving. You may not like projects like Monroe Park or 18th Street (and I assume you’re talking about the 17th Street Farmers Market), but that doesn’t mean that the City instinctively fails.
Scott’s Addition has no bearing on this conversation point. Thats in a completely different category for reasons so obvious I don’t even have to explain. Anything major project paid for by the city or is a major RFP the city selected it is fair to hold the city to high standard. They won’t be the only party to blame if the outcome is subpar or mediocre but certainly worthy of blame. Parcels along the river expanded as parks? I’ve traveled enough to have perspective that what the city has done along the River is rather mediocre. Go to Boise, Indianapolis… Read more »
Scott’s Addition – I disagree, but see your point (public vs private). James River Park: 20 years ago it was a bunch of signs. They’ve added T-Pott bridge, a ton of infrastructure on Belle Isle, Dock Street Park, a new ramp at Tredegar, and more. Huguenot is going to be an accessible boat ramp. Visit the Friends of James River Park website and look at the Master Plan.
And new amphitheater and Folk Fest and some pretty impressive looking new schools. Imperfect, flawed, etc but not the total failure folks who pull against the city want it to be.
The amphitheater. Imperfect is an understatement. At 7,500 total capacity they will not attract the world-class acts they hope to. Add to that the completely open and exposed assigned seating areas. Instead of learning from Virginia Beach’s excellent and successful VUHL Amphitheater with 20k capacity and covered seating (Even the Ting Pavilion has covered seating), Richmond settled for another half-baked budget plan.
They didn’t make a destination. They made a waypoint.
Half Fast Inc.
First, Coran Capshaw wouldn’t be doing this if he couldn’t get the acts in it that he wants. Second, have you been to the newer and similar sized downtown amphitheaters in charlotte and Raleigh. They get great mid size acts just as I expect this to. The fact you hold out Va Beach’s atrocious amphitheater out as a comp says a lot. It takes hours to get out of that place, it’s run like a police state. It’s the worst, well, 2nd worst bested only by the one in Gainesville (forget the newest corporate name, jiffy line maybe?).
It’s a private development that is building the amphitheater by-right, the city didn’t really have any say whatsoever.
Your comment saying the river parks are better than what was there 20 years ago kind of reinforces my initial point about the stadium. Richmond is too willing to settle for minor improvements over the past crap often times at costly prices.
Where are your ideas? You’re complaining but have no suggestions for improving and paying for something that is up to your standards. Better than what was before is an improvement. Richmond has often failed by swinging too big and being unable to realize it or make it functional and affordable. To me it’s a good sign that whether the river improvements, baseball stadium etc that are are saying Keep it simple and appreciate the overall success created by many modest successes like the opposite of death by a thousand cuts.
I had posted ideas elsewhere in this thread before you even made your comment. One example I cited was the stadium for Fort Wayne Tincaps Single-A team. Keeping it simple would be no stadium at all. I’m actually in favor of just placing a new street grid in this area and incentivizing a walkable community that will pay for itself in taxes rather than putting tax payers on the hook for subsidizing this for-profit business. Let the team relocate to the county and be subsidized there. Make no mistake if the incremental tax revenue from the remainder of the Diamond… Read more »
Nobody is going to move into your magincal walkable grid if the city keeps getting rid of destinations that draw people in, like the Coliseum, The Ball Park, the Casio, And countless other ventures that go into a quagmire and die. Richmond could have things other cities have like an aquarium, a RIpley’s tourist trap, ANd all kinds of other tourism and revenue-generating things, but they’ll never make it out of the planning phase here.
Wrong. Richmond’s competitive advantage over the counties is walkability/bikeability. It would be best to lean into that rather than waste enormous tax subsidies on expensive entertainment toys that put risk on the taxpayer but rewards on private companies. The successes for new construction are in Richmond are Scott’s addition, Church Hill and Manchester. Lean into and replicate what is working in those locations rather than try to build arenas and stadiums that sit empty 200+ days a year. The one entertainment venue I’m probably OK with is that amphitheater. It seems to complement Brown’s Island well and I don’t seem… Read more »
Have the subcontractors been decided and awarded contracts . Are working drawings been completed.How about electrical, plumbing ,hvac working drawings,they done? Is there a site plan available? How’s the utilities entering the complex?
First off – it’s amazing to see work begin on a project that’s taken nearly 20 years to get to this point. For that we should be excited. Unfortunately its just like every other minor league park that’s been developed in the last 5 years….I think the program is right, but the design (renders) show little detail or element that makes it stand out. After all this time, I’d hoped for architecture/innovation that could be identified as uniquely ours. Meh.
It’s nothing more than Federal Modernism Redux.
It looks like a cheaper version of the U.S. Tax Court Building.
All straight lines and zero ornamentation.
Almost prefab.
Because it’s low cost and low standard.
What are some of these uniquely Richmond ideas you’re looking for? I keep seeing this theme in the commenting since the 1st drawings came out yet hardly anyone offers any specific ideas. Do you want a civil war cosplay area? Lots of repurposed tobacco warehouses? Some cobblestone sidewalks that look cool but suck to drive or walk on? Maybe an antebellum plantation house behind left field? To be real here, after the confederate monuments were removed what does Richmond have that similar sized cities don’t? The James running down the middle for sure but they chose not to locate the… Read more »
Honestly I think the renderings could be a lot better. They seem very cartoonish to me. So much so that I am finding it hard to really understand what the stadium will look like. Aside from that – first impressions is of a small town minor league stadium, not something that reflects Richmond, the state capital, and it’s diverse cultural heritage and history. Lastly, definitely put the souvenir shop on the way to the exit.
I am just excited this is coming to fruition. I’ll bet with the addition of Ms. Petchin to TRP a lot of the concerns will be addressed.
Bruce: It’s fantasy to think that a AAA team will be at the new ballpark when the Squirrels have a 25-30 year lease, and a higher average attendance that the R Braves ever had.By the way the Braves AAA locat
MLB now controls all affiliated minor league teams. If they think Richmond can support a AAA team Richmond gets a AAA team There’s also a move to make affiliates geographically close and our major team is in San Fran. Wouldn’t surprise anyone if MLB moved the Nats AAA team here down the road.
Within the next 6-8 years MLB will increase from 30 to 32 teams. That will definitely shuffle AAA up as two cities that now have AAA will likely get MLB teams (Nashville? Salt Lake?) which will effectively mean 4 additional cities will get AAA teams.
But yes, it is true that MLB teams place a far greater emphasis on having their AAA teams be very close to the MLB team than they ever have in the past.
One major issue with the stadium architecturally is that the main entrance for the stadium is in the outfield. And the area behind home plate is just an afterthought with blank brick walls of little architectural value nestled up against train tracks. On the most impressive stadiums the main entrances are usually behind home plate and the facade behind home plate is grand with ornamentation. An example would be ParkView stadium in for the single-A Fort Wayne Tincaps in Indiana. Google it and you’ll see some photos of a good example.