RECENT COMMENTS
Joel Cabot on Power Outage on the Hill
Eric S. Huffstutler on What is up with the Church Hill Post Office?
Eric S. Huffstutler on What is up with the Church Hill Post Office?
Yvette Cannon on What is up with the Church Hill Post Office?
crd on Power Outage on the Hill
More about Dock Street
10/10/2006 6:33 AM by John M
The RTD’s N.Va. firm plans towers locally details the view-blocking towers proposed for Dock Street.
TAGGED: St.John's District
You know, that lot flooded with the rain last week and Water Street was closed again. That’s twice now in the last five months. This isn’t exactly a 100 year flood plain, which implies only a one percent chance of flooding in any given year.
My principal objection to this development is the privatization of a public amenity, that lovely view. At any given time, there’s someone standing out on the edge of the bluff at Libby Hill Park and gazing out over the river valley.
I saw the presentation at the round table meeting. The towers won’t actually block the view of the rivers bend and the towers don’t seem to be much higher than the trees are already. I love the idea of having someone clean up and KEEP UP Libby Hill Park and the Great Shiplock Park!
Yes, that specific part of the view won’t be blocked, but the view out over the valley will be. Also, the trees are not more than three or four stories high. The towers are going to be 18 stories high, as much as six times taller than the trees!
I didn’t see the presentation, but I did see the drawing in the Church Hill newsletter. That drawing only showed the buildings and the treeline. It did not show the horizon or the river, which would provide some objective means to evaluate the effect on the view. Does that mean we won’t be able to actually see the horizon or the river with those towers in the way?
The city needs to redevelop the riverfront. Hopefully, they will do so by using a true mixed use strategy. The standard redevelopment saying applies here: it is hard to make an omlette without breaking a few eggs. The currently slow condo market will hopefully recover in the 2-3 years it takes to develop this thing. That said, the developer needs to come down on the 18 story plan. I am guessing if they proposed 18, it means they have the profit spread to make due with 15. So, lets get it down to 10 with the parking and make one building a rental to lesson the impact on the condo market and add some more retail etc. Just having a gym and a restaurant does not exactly give rise to notions of true mixed use. You know, think big while spreading the risk across different sectors. There are few destination developments along the river. I have sauntered by that newly constructed riverfront condos/office comple on browns island many a time with no interest in exploring the site. This is in no small part to the exclusionary design of the place as well as the fact that there is nothing remotely inviting to the site. Cities already have made myriad bad historical choices with their waterfronts, why continue the trend by not blending these developments better into the every day use of neighbors and visitors. So, if you are going to destroy everyone’s view, at least make up for it with some interesting and urban-integrated development planning.
2 buildings, both 18 STORIES HIGH and 100 feet — or was it yards? — WIDE would be a MONTROSITY!
And did anyone notice that modernistic stair step design that these 2 18 STORY, 100 FEET (YARDS?) WIDE buildings would have? Jeez, talk about destroying the architectural asthetic of the Bottom and Church Hill!
But, all is well since the developers will fix the park stairs in return for us giving the City the 2 thumbs up for their plans. Ain’t that might nice of them! Views ruined, neighborhood character destroyed, but we’ll have some damn nice stairs! GLORY BE!
wric.com (ch8) has the story:
RTD: Builder: Condos to create 365 jobs
It’s interesting how, in that article, Ross reduces a vista of southside Virginia to a view of a wastewater treatment plant. Obviously, if the view sucked that bad, he wouldn’t be trying to appropriate it for his condos.
I would much rather see an 18 story building than the industrial remanents currently in place. Those tall white silos near fulton gas works are awful. If they knock those down and replace it with an open space park, then Im all for it.
We have far too many upscale (and high density) condominiums already, and they are NOT selling well. The market is saturated, and real estate sales are flat. What bothers me about this project– aside from destroying the most historic and important view in our city– is the fact that the developers don’t care about the need for or success of such a project. They will take the money and run and leave it to the rest of us to “live with” the results of their brilliant idea. (And pu-leez give me a break re the same old spin about the jobs it will bring. Where have we heard this before?)
We need to think long-term about this. We should not jump at a poor idea for development just because it is better than what we have now. It is only a matter of time before someone develops this area. We need to be choosey about what goes here because it will be there for a very long time. They need to look at what Rockett’s Landing has planned for a good example of smart development. It needs to fit in with the character of the area — and not block out the sun. And 99% of the jobs created will only last a few years because they are for construction.
Does anyone know if there’s somewhere online where we can view sketches of the buildings and the resulting views that are in question? Is David Cooley’s architect neighbor willing to share his estimates with us? I’m having trouble picturing it in my head.
These towers should be a wonderful and welcome addition to that area. Let’s make sure the developer’s plan allow for the view from Libby Hill park to remain (between the buildings) of the James. We must support this development because it will bring much needed improvements and residents to our broader neighborhood. The residents of this development will add to the tax base, improve property values, increase population and be another catalyst toward improving our overall neighborhood. It takes more residents willing to invest in our neighborhood to turn it around. This will be a strong economic engine for the East End and its redevelopment.
Riverfront towers opposed:
I know I’d rather see upscale mixed use there than the 300ft high industrial that it is now zoned for.
it sounds a little too upscale, though. and so unaesthetically pleasing. most new architecture of this sort is so lame looking. the new condos on the james have lovely views, but they look completely bland (inside, too). perhaps in a hundred years, it will look charming. meanwhile we have to live with this modern eye pollution.
and if there is no access to the river in that space for the rest of the public, won’t it disrupt the plan to have trails and such from rocketts to downtown?
and one more thing. now that every little warehouse, shack, garage, and outhouse downtown is now lofts/apartments/condos, can we now start filling in cool stuff, like movie theaters, galleries, shops, decent bars, etc.? a little something for the middle class, perhaps?
sorry, i’m a little impatient. (and classist!) i guess it just takes time.