Sports Complex Proposed for Pantops

In an effort to worsen traffic on Pantops (one assumes), a Pennsylvania businessman has proposed building an indoor sports complex there. Jeremy Borden writes in the Progress about the $9M, 125k ft.2 soccer, tennis and basketball facility, which would be built on land that the guy already owns. He’s looking to work with the guy who owns the land adjacent, too, for an even larger project.

Pantops is probably an appropriate place for this sort of a thing, but without doing something radically different with the transportation network there, things are only going to get worse.

18 thoughts on “Sports Complex Proposed for Pantops”

  1. The oxymoron inherent in the use of the term “transportation network” to describe Pantops is akin to that seen in terms attempting to link Charlottesville and/or Albemarle with “Planning”.

  2. Never met a business idea you couldn’t pan, eh Waldo? I take that back–I’ve never seen you complain about all the banks sucking up real estate around town.

  3. From my reding of the article, the land is not in the growth area….correct? Seems like a major hurdle to me.

  4. As a player and coach, I love this idea. However, if the property is in fact in a rural area, didn’t the County just reject SOCA’s facility on the grounds that is was in a rural area?

    From the DP:

    On April 11, it wasn’t to be. Supervisors, with the exception of Lindsay G. Dorrier Jr., voted down the $4.5 million plan largely because it would sit in a rural area off Polo Grounds Road, an area county policy protects from such development, board members said.

  5. A fellow puts up his own money to build a facility for kids to play soccer, donates 5 acres for trails and he is smeared for causing traffic problems. The silver lining isn’t hard to find here.

  6. Three guys walk into a C’ville bar. A developer, a city councilman and a taxpayer. The city councilman says, “Gentlemen, let’s drink a toast to progress and growth.” The developer says, “Well, can I start a tab?” And the taxpayer says, “Only if I can put it on my 1040-Schedule A”. But there’s a fourth guy watching it all. He’s the environmentalist and he says, “What the f—?”

  7. I agree with Jim that it is confusing to think that a similar proposal (from SOCA) was just rejected. Personally I was opposed to the SOCA plan for more reasons then its apparent zoning infraction. An indoor facility (as the one they designed) would certainly not be able to cater to everyone interested in playing during the winter. SOCA has a track record of providing the best for the top teams and dividing the lesser fields etc to the rest. Currently the cost of playing in the top Adult league is marginally more then in the lowest league, yet the top league (Of which I participate) uses the best fields (South Fork) and has three referees per field. The co-rec league and youth teams (who also pay significant dues) often get stuck on so-so fields with one referee at best.

    This newly proposed facility will be private and will allow those who have the money and interest to use such a facility to do so while allowing SOCA to focus their funds on providing quality soccer leagues, coaches etc for all of the children and adults who are interested in our community. The zoning is another thing entirely.

  8. just what is needed, more soccer fields in the area !!

    how about more baseball and football fields for the kids ?

    what kills me is that anytime a kid gets on a soccer field to throw baseball or throw football they get yelled at or a complaint is filed, yet when a person is on a baseball or football field and they’re asked to leave, the soccer player throws a hissy fit and has to be asked several times to leave.

  9. Sewage line: where is this site exactly? The main sewage line is actually pretty bizarre. At the end of Chesapeake St., at the green pipe vents, it drops 300 ft. (yes!), and crosses under the Rivanna River. Then a bit further downstream, it crosses back under the Rivanna to reach the Moore’s Creek treatment facility. I heard it second hand, but the people telling me were very involved in trying to get the nighttime stink down in the Woolen Mills.

  10. I don’t see why he shouldn’t be allowed to do it. I’d be surprised if this area has a high enough population to make the business succeed given the capital involved, but that’s his business and not mine.

    The only thing that seems a little odd is that the picture of the land he is supposedly going to do this on sure looks to me like the Rivanna River. Which seems like kind of a dumb place to put a sports complex.

    I should think that most of the increased traffic caused by the facility would be on the weekends and thus tend not to compound commuting delays.

  11. May I make a suggestion. Why doesn’t the guy give/trade his land to the city….for the east side of McIntire Park, and all problems would be solved. No county zoning and I bet he could even get the city to put up a few million of taxpayer money to help out. After all the city did give away the west side of McIntire park for a YMCA aquatic/fitness center. I think these two things would complement each other.

  12. Never met a business idea you couldn’t pan, eh Waldo?

    Huh? I didn’t “pan” the business idea — my problem is with the totally broken planning and zoning process for Pantops. As a business, I can’t see anything wrong with the idea, though I don’t know the first thing about running a sports facility or, in fact, soccer.

  13. I was just talking to my wife yesterday on how an indoor sports complex would *clean up* here, due to the shortage of fields. Had I the finances, I would have been all over it.

  14. It doesn’t look like this is actually on Pantops, just near it, as the Progress article said. From the description, it sounds like it’s East of the exit 124, on the South side of 250, either across from the Holiday Inn, or a part of the big field at Shadwell, across from Hunter’s Way.

  15. That big field across from Hunter’s way is part of Shadwell, the farm/estate owned by Monticello. you won’t see anything but cattle in that field. I think the location is closer to the Kohr’s and Jarman buildings on Rt. 250. Although the picture in the article didn’t make it clear where the land was other than “Pantops”.

  16. The 9 acres would be a parcel wrapping around and behind those small commercial buildings on the south side of 250. (Are those Kohr’s and Jarman? I haven’t been over there in a while.)

    The article wasn’t really precise — the parcel was purchased in 2005 by TCMS, not “last year”, and the adjoining land appears to be two parcels totalling 50 acres (not 70), owned by South Lego Farm LLC. The picture would have to be the 5 acre piece along the river that’s separated from the rest by the C&O tracks (probably what they want to give the county in return for approval). Almost everything else nearby is owned by the TJ Memorial Foundation. It’s all designated “rural” by the county.

Comments are closed.