First & Main, Blacksburg
When First & Main in Blacksburg opened on Black Friday last year, the project was touted as a huge success for Blacksburg.
And it could have been.
But now, it seems it’s just a hodgepodge of storefronts, both and empty and full, and a lot of uncertainty. And that’s a shame.
I don’t really feel like opening up the First & Main debate so much these days, in all honesty – you can see some of the history here, if you’re interested. It really tires me, this division a project that should have been lauded as a success for the region and not just Blacksburg. Regional and national retailers were lined up at the door to have Main Street access to the community, yet politics and bluster got in the way. Now a few tenants have sued the developer, but if the developer is blocked by state law, isn’t a suit a mute point?
Where does it end up? Who knows. Developer Jeanne Stosser says she’s willing to put residential mixed-use on the property, but says that it’s not the best use of the property. That’s probably true, but with such a large rate of vacancy in the property, don’t we need to look at stabilizing the project? I admire what Ms. Stosser has accomplished in her career, and I agree that residential might not be the highest and best use, but it’s certainly a better use than sitting vacant.
Ahh, the draYma. I need a beer from Bull & Bones.
This content is published under the Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license.
No related posts.
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
{ 4 comments… read them below or add one }
“Now a few tenants have sued the developer, but if the developer is blocked by state law, isn’t a suit a mute point?”
How was the cinema blocked by state law?
“Now a few tenants have sued the developer, but if the developer is blocked by state law, isn’t a suit a mute point?”
How was the cinema blocked by state law?
Mike, thanks for the comment. Apparently I wasn’t clear, what I meant was that the developer was blocked from performing on some of the promises it made to the tenants – prospective and current – when it was soliciting leases. Now that the state Supreme Court has ruled in favor of the Town, many of those promises might not be able to come to fruition. So I was wondering aloud whether a suit made any sense.
Didn’t mean to imply that the decision over whether or not a cinema was installed had anything to do with the Supreme Court’s ruling; I have no knowledge of that. Good catch.
Mike, thanks for the comment. Apparently I wasn’t clear, what I meant was that the developer was blocked from performing on some of the promises it made to the tenants – prospective and current – when it was soliciting leases. Now that the state Supreme Court has ruled in favor of the Town, many of those promises might not be able to come to fruition. So I was wondering aloud whether a suit made any sense.
Didn’t mean to imply that the decision over whether or not a cinema was installed had anything to do with the Supreme Court’s ruling; I have no knowledge of that. Good catch.