RECENT COMMENTS
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
Development proposal for 1903 East Marshall
06/20/2007 9:57 AM by John M
Plans have emerged for residential and commercial development on the now empty lot at 1903 East Marshall Street, at the foot of Jefferson Hill Park.
The proposed development will be a topic of discussion at the next Friends of Jefferson Park meeting to be held Monday June 25th (location TBA).
Drawings and description of the proposed development:
– 1903 East Marshall Street (PDF)
architect: Marcellus Wright Cox Architects
Yeah. Sure.
Here’s my prediction.
We’ll see plans drawn up, and then either such vocal protests from the surrounding citizens that the developers give up and move on, or construction will begin and then the developers will either run out of money or run into trouble with the city and bail.
Either way, there won’t be any development.
I just moved to Princess Anne Ave, and I am very disappointed by this news. Hopefully, the plans won’t go through. I called Council woman Delores McQuinn and expressed my concern, and I hope other do the same.
Oh, and this is my first post here. This is a great neighborhood to call home, and I am thrilled to be here. 🙂
Better than a vacant lot, but can than find tennants?
The Friends of Jefferson Park will meet at 7pm on Monday, June 25th at the Bandstand at the top of Jefferson Park. We will hear about the development proposed at the base of the park, to include an explanation of the new B6 zoning. Feel free to bring a cold drink and a folding chair. If it is just too hot, we will move the meeting indoors to a nearby location. Consider joining the Friends of Jefferson Park- there are no membership dues- just a pledge to stay active in maintaining and enhancing our neighborhood park.
Bill Conkle, Friends of Jefferson Park
The foot of Jefferson Park is about to be transformed. NCB12 did a story on the plans to renovate the Cold Storage blocks. Plans include 400 apartments and several restaurants, including a brew pub. Demolition work should start in the next few months and the project should be complete by April 2009.
Hmmm. I commented on this last night, and it looks like my comment was removed.
It was my first time commenting, so perhaps I was unaware of a rule for this site.
Regardless, I will be at the meeting, expressing my supreme disappointment with this plan. I called my city council person about this and left a message. I don’t know if it will halp, but it is worth a shot.
1) were the “blue prints” above drawn on on a coctail napkin or what? and 2) How the heck does the developer hope to rent these new places when there is already a surplus of downtown living spaces. Rennovation/development should happen, but not without serious questions being answered.
Just curious, does anyone know who the developer(s) is/are?
And to jc – the Cold Storage blocks aren’t quite in the same block of East Marshall, I think they’re west by a block or so and north, too…are they going to be tied into this development for the 1900 block of East Marshall Street? I missed the story on channel 12.
And finally, to Bill Conkle – perhaps after your meeting on Monday you could post here with more info? Thanks!
The Cold Storage may be the more interesting question. The (crude) diagram for 1903 shows the roofline below the hill, so the view appears to be minimally impacted. This could be a non-issue.
But it would be interesting to see how many buildings are going to be flat-out demolished in the Cold Storage area and how many are going to be rehabbed. The roundhouse by the tunnel is so cool, I hope they keep that at least.
Jaime – As a 1st time poster, your comment was automatically held for moderation. I get *amazing* amounts of spam comments. You should be good to go now.
And in general, the few times that I’ve deleted comments, I’ve contacted the commenter and explained why.
Welcome to the area and the site!
Seems like some new light industry would do more for the local community than a bunch of new, expensive housing. The city gets plenty of tax revenue already, what we really need are more good jobs, not just construction work.
The renderings make the project look very institutional. Since the development is in the Shockoe Valley Old & Historic District, it would be nice if they did some more interesting modern things to it.
For example, the lofts over on E. Franklin and Broad have taken an old warehouse and added some new, terraced, cascading roof lines to it. Really cool.
O&H new design is encouraged to add some modern elements to the structure as long as the scale, materials and setbacks compliment the surrounding buildings.
I’d like to see some more detailed drawings, but at first glance this development looks like a prison out of a George Raft movie.
As long as it doesn’t block the view from the park (it would have to be a pretty tall building to do that…) go for it.
What would you rather see driving to your neighborhood?
A nice multiuse area with retail and entertainment space with some apartments or an weed covered, broken asphault empty lot?
The area is improving and growing. That cannot be stopped, whether some people want it or not. What we need to do is make sure that growth suits the area.
They sure could put alot worse things down there…
The Cold Storage building in its current state attracks bums and drug addicts (I know – I encountered a couple while exploring the area!) And it reeks of urine. This has got to be better. Although, I hope the keep the “Cold Storage” logo on the building like John Sanchez has done with his restaurant.
Thanks John! We have met before, at the Richmond blog con fab. Great to be here in the Hill.
I disagree that they should just go for it. Why can’t we have something else built that is pretty, and that contributes to the community and the economy? Furthermore, what kind of housing will this be? The building diagram, as crude as it is, certainly doesn’t make me think that it will be any better looking than a gravel filled abandoned lot. I also don’t enjoy that a public park is going to become a backyard to a building. I have lived her for less than a month, but I am already impressed at the seemingly common sense manners and bahvior many park goers exhibit, and I worry that a new building, full of apartment dwellers new to the area, might not “get it”.
jamie,
why would anyone renting the apartments be less likely to ‘get it’ than anyone else living in church hill? i usually read comments posted here at chpn that offer more than ample proof that many church hill homeowners don’t ‘get it’ either. hopefully you will not equate neighborhood problems with the apartment residents. that would just be too silly.
That’s certainly not what I meant, maryanne. However, a large influx of brand new residents as opposed to 2 or 3 people moving onto a street is different.
sorry, jaime and phriendlyjaime are the same person. I decided to go ahead and use my blogger name.
true! true! sorry for being ugly – i guess i have just come across too many church hill residents that blame renters and lower-income groups for neighborhood problems (crime, vandalism, blight, etc.) the people to blame are the absentee landlords, real-estate ‘investors’ (that renovate and flip homes to make a quick profit), and complacent residents who are good at complaining but bad at contributing to the well-being of all church hill residents). the ‘flippers’, absentee landlords are the ones we should be holding accountable.
i am confused by the term development proposal. the proposal is for rezoning and there is nothing to bind approval of the building sketch as a condition of rezoning.
what seems significant to me is that typically in this neighborhood the zoning goes from m1 to b5 to accommodate development. this one is different going from m1 to b6.
the shockoe bottom study and plan recommended a comprehensive planning strategy to protect existing and historic features so that new development (especially on the vacant lots) would fit into context of the neighborhood.
mcquinn submitted a paper at council for the city to study a “design overlay” (not a city historic district) as a strategy to meet some of the needs documented in the shockoe bottom study. That study was never done. city planning staff said the community objected but there is no record of any public meeting about the overlay district.
somehow now the city staff has created a new zoning classification the b6 and has twisted the arm of the owner at 1903 e marshall to ask for zoning from m1 to b6, not b5 which is typical.
the 1903 east marshall owner should be entitled to rezoning, just like everyone else in similar circumstances.
in fact the rezoning needs to be comprehensive so that all of the m1 goes to b or ro uses like the adopted shockoe bottom master plan says.
mcquinn needs to say why she let the design overlay study in shockoe bottom die at the hands of the city planning gestapo.
I say go for it!! The more development the better!! The more people there are with disposable income living in Church Hill and the Bottom the more restaurants and services our neighborhoods will support. Build, build, build!!! (but of course in a style that supports and honors the historic character of our community). I just hope no one shows the developer or future condo buyers photos of the landslide that buried cars and filled Marshall Street and the 1903 property with mud during Gaston. And when is someone going to develop that huge waste of land that is the parking lot behind McDonalds??
brad, what kind of development do you want on the parking lot site around mcd’s
Am I right in remembering that this lot was once an elementary school (not from my school days, but from a picture I once saw)? The bad news for our friends who live in the county and work at MCV or the state is that their days of free parking on these surface streets may be over. These developments, while mostly supportable seem to cry out for some master plan for the Bottom. I guess the city wants another big lot returned to the tax rolls for obvious reasons, but the questions about traffic and surface street improvements (and park slope improvements) seems unanswered.
yes the site was once an elementary school. jefferson school and the principal was known as “the rabbi” due to the jewish community. the school closed in 1929 and sent the students to bellevue.
the master plan for shockoe bottom was done 1997-2001 and the only result has been the city adoption of the b-6 zoning classification. that b-6 classification has zero impact on the recommendations in the shockoe bottom master plan.
the answers to any questions are obvious for the vacant lots in the bottom. the council and city staff continue to fall over for developers like 2 dollar whores (cause they are 2 dollar whores)
I won’t argue with the categorizaion of the council, but on this topic, I have no problem with them engaging in ‘solicitation’ of developers, because it is an area that sorely needs to be developed.
Of course, I stil demand (but do not expect) that our council members keep the best interests of the city and their consituents in mind and that they do not profit personally through inappropriate ‘campaign contributions’ and such.
A slightly edited-for-context email sent out after the last Friends of Jefferson Park meeting:
Sorry, Zoning controls height not CAR, you lose, the developer wins & makes extra millions on your view. call your council person tell her you want a height restriction. Council woman Delores McQuinn 222-1574
Has anyone heard what happened to this project? We figured that once the zoning was approved that the developer would just sit on it and resell when the economy improved. That may take awhile!