RECENT COMMENTS
A new Echo Harbor proposal emerges
The battle over Richmond Intermediate Terminal continues afresh. A new partnership between the proposed developer of Echo Harbor George T. Ross and restaurateur Michael Ripp offers “a joint project that would include moving Dock Street to allow the shifting of the condominium towers out of the view from Libby Hill Park and expanding public access to the river along the property”. [via]
Mayor L. Douglas Wilder wants to build and operate a public marina on the property. Council has refused to approve the marina. The council is expected to vote tonight on whether to buy the adjacent Lehigh property for about $2 million, and retains the power “to determine later how much of the 1.6-acre property would be set aside for public park, and what could be resold to a private developer”.
The mayor has accused council members Pantele, Tyler, and McQuinn of conflicts of interest for accepting campaign contributions from the developers and others involved with Echo Harbour.
I can’t see how moving Dock would resolve anything. I was ok with something being built there, but Ross doesn’t seem to want to make major revisions. The whole project should be abandoned until someone with some sense comes up with a better plan of development.
There is a City Council meeting tonight at 6PM and vote on this subject. Please attend, be counted and speak up against Echo Harbour towers blocking the historic view of the James from Libby Hill Park. At this time I don’t know of any public drawing showing citizens of Richmond – the “shifted condo towers” and subsequent preservation of the historic viewshed.
I wish I could go but I’ll be at a PTA meeting. I’m curious on what they have in mind with this shifting the towers and moving a street business. Is there somewhere else this whole project could go? Why there? And who supports it? So far I’ve only heard a loud “No” from people here and across town.
A question that’s been nagging me: will this disrupt the view from Chimborazo Park as well? Right now, when standing on the bluff, one can see all over the city, especially Southside, so in my estimation Echo Harbor would hinder the view from there as well, right?
No, Chimborozo’s view wouldn’t be impacted. It’s too far to the east and in my opinion, while Chimborozo has a great view of Fulton and some of soutside, it’s panorama is not as spectacular as Libby Hill’s.
I think the more important question for last night was why is the City spending 2+ million dollars on a marina to get into the the marina business? City Hall is falling apart, our schools need help, we have fire stations that wouldn’t even pass a building inspection, and the list goes on and on.
The $2 million is to buy the land. The marina they say is paid by hooking up water connections to Rocketts in Henrico bc the county charges a lot and the city not as much.
I seem to remember that city residents pay way more for gas and water than the counties. Anyway, using utility revenues seems a chancy way to pay for the land. Is that really true?
“Is there somewhere else this whole project could go?”
Well when you sign a contract with someone who wants to spend 250 million dollars in your city the answer is no.
“Why there?”
Because it is a spectacular location.
“And who supports it?”
Well, people who would like to see millions of dollars in tax revenue.
People who would like to see their own property taxes decreased.
People who would like to spend less money on legal fees.
People who might like to live there.
People who would like to visit or shop there.
People who are reluctant to speak out publicly and be ridiculed.
At the moment, all the investment dollars are spilling over into the Henrico side of the line. Henrican are not complaining and neither are Richmonders.
Localities do this all the time. Buying the land allows the city to control how it is developed. They can sell it (or part of it) to someone who will build how they want rather than being at the mercy of private developers.
They can make the money back when they sell the land and by collecting taxes on it over the years. (Or by collecting more taxes because surrounding property values go up.) It can be a good investment rather than a boondoggle.
That said, Richmond will likely find a way to screw it up.
Richmond on James vs Richmond on Thames
http://downtownrichmond.blogspot.com/2008/06/richmond-on-james-vs-richmond-on-thames.html
See also:
Most CH folks aren’t against some development as long as it does not block the “view that named Richmond” and public access is assured.
We are right to question the developers and demand that development is respectful of the environment and community.
Chesterfield is an excellent example of over-development. I am sure lots of people made lots of money, but it really sucks to live there now. Congested and over-crowded, with very little hint of what the land once looked like.
I may be mistaken, but at one point most of the Chesterfield Board of Supervisors was primarily composed of developers and real estate.
We can’t let that happen in Richmond.
It is not just about the viewshed to me, it is also a question of scale. Nothing remotely this tall is anywhere near this site. Put this building downtown and it fits right in, but down here where the tallest neighboring structure is what?? four stories tall, maybe. Has anyone seen a presentation/image of the proposed towers and how they fit into the surrounding area (something akin to the rendering done for the project at the foot of Jefferson Park)?? This would be really helpful in getting an idea of what this would look like.
gray,
I would like to add a short caveat. I used your questions as a springboard to highlight the case for Echo Harbor. It was not intended as a personal rebuke.
I think there is room for both public access and mixed use development along the river. Libby Hill Park is one of my favorite places, but the view is already tarnished. I haven’t seen photos of the revised development, but here’s a link to the Echo Harbor website.
http://www.ifdevelopment.com/projects/echo-harbour/index.htm
Mr. Hammond
Quick question? In what way is the view already tarnished??
Paul,
I didn’t look at it in that way at all. My questions were meant to be used as a springboard by all sides. I want to know what folk are thinking.
“People who would like to see their own property taxes decreased.”
How would Echo Harbor decrease realestate taxes? Since living in Church Hill through various condo developments, my property tax has always increased yearly. I’ve never seen a decrease in my life time, does such thing exist?
17.
g, take a look at the links in comments 11 and 12. A cement factory, a rail yard, a bridge factory and the smokestacks and traffic of tobacco row. If we are going to debate this subject, we should start with an objective understanding of where we are starting.
18.
gray, I am referring to the rates. Taxes are also tied to assessments which is another matter. Echo Harbor would generate millions in tax revenue and millions more in additional investment. The council budget reduces tax rates .03 more than the Mayor’s budget, which he is trying to implement.
Of course, the current plan is to demolish the Cement Factory and use the land as a public park, right?
We should restore rather than abandon the view.
If all the tax revenue generated from Echo Harbor went directly into improving east end schools, everthing from building a new ones to renovating older ones and hiring high quality teachers and staff, I would consider taking a look at Echo Harbor, otherwise, what’s the point? Why should we bother bringing in money for city hall and RPS to waste or lose and make the rich richer?
Why must Echo Harbor be a tower? Make it short, fat, and sqatty on stilts –folk living in the condos would still be able to see the river. I’m thinking of that little white house I always see when I cross the Huguenot Bridge.
Paul, I looked at the Echo Harbor development link and that project looks like some Virginia Beach crap. It doesn’t belong in the middle of one of Richmond’s most historic views. I could see it closer to town like that other glass tower.
Whatever is built in that area needs to consider the history and the natural surroundings. I’m thinking along the lines of Wright’s buildings in the wild. I’m also thinking of the Nature center at Maymont, how it fits in with the landscape.
The city administration (Mayor Wilder) already contracted with Echo Harbor to use this land and is now renigging (more lawsuits). New residents spend money IN the city creating new jobs and supporting schools.
A well planned compromise would add residents, increase access to the river, improve the city’s tax base, and add jobs. The vast majority of Richmonders couldn’t find Libby Hill with a map. While it is a wonderful place, it is a neighborhood park. The riverfront should benefit all Richmonder’s. We have done a wonderful job preserving and restoring the river. I have taken many walks through the James River Park System. I believe this portion of the river would attract the public to the river in a way the JRPS cannot.
It’s hard to tell people who want to spend $250 million the exact size, location and proportions of their building. They will move their project right out of the city and sue us for our trouble. Henrico County is a much friendlier business environment and is within the sitelines of Libby Hill. I would rather see the taxes, jobs and residents in the city.
You can’t earmark tax dollars. They go into the general fund. With new leadership across the board we can make real progress with the RPS. That is my hope.
Mr. Hammond,
You wrote “The vast majority of Richmonders couldn’t find Libby Hill with a map.”
Therefore they couldn’t find Echo Harbor without a map either.
Do you work for the developer? Look at their website. Each property features only views of their developments. One just has a cruddy McMansion aka “a north Dallas special” The developers do not have the funding, and they have never built a high rise. They want to build in Richond because its cheaper than Northern VA or DC- just so they can have a high rise in their portfolio.
This developer is connented with the Unification Church. Fine. Anything they bankroll is a financial nightmare. Look at the Washington Times. It is owned by the unification church and it continualy looses millions each year.
In conclusion, the building is a horrible design in the wrong location funded by the wrong people. How is that a win for Richmond?
I just don’t think you are getting our point: We are not against appropriate development. We are against a high-rise in that particular area. It is not necessary to build such a tall and imposing structure in that spot to stimulate the economy.
Huh, the words appropriate development seem to get used a lot around here, :)! (and rightly so might I add)
“Do you work for the developer?”
No, I don’t.
“In conclusion, the building is a horrible design in the wrong location funded by the wrong people. How is that a win for Richmond?”
I don’t agree with your premise or conclusion.
Jobs, tax revenue, residents are good things for Richmond.
Personal attack don’t further the conversation. I don’t believe I have attacked anyone’s character or movitivation.
I am also for appropriate development. So we agree in principle.
“Henrico County is a much friendlier business environment.”
And Henrico County is right ugly because of it. Without culture and art, living amongst humans would be unbearable. Why do you think most mass murdering pyschos are spawned in suburbia? The county developments lack soul. Innsbrook is Orwellian. Short Pump is Disney.
I wish people with $250 million dollars had a sense of history and culture and some taste.
Again that development looks like something out of Daytona Beach. Why all the concrete making it hotter than sin? Why not keep it woodsy around the project?
I guess, except that for me “appropriate developement” does not in any way include a high rise. That would not be appropriate.
Paul –
I understand you are a big supporter of Bill Pantele who has close ties to the developer of this project.
Be that as it may, what do you think the residents of the Fan would say if a similar project — with similar dubious claims of “jobs, new tax revenues,economic development, etc., etc.” — was proposed for their neighborhood?
Ray good question.
Paul, Will Pantele be making money off this project?
Hi Mr. Hammond,
I did not personally attack you.
Developing this premise-“Jobs, tax revenue, residents are good things for Richmond.” Okay. But it still illustrates that it is shoddy design.
“Well It may not be pretty. It is out of character for its environment. And It’s presence angered a neighborhood- but come on! Jobs, tax revenue, residents!
When was the last time you looked at a fine building and say “Wow! Look at all that tax revenue?”
Richmond needs to fix its existing neighborhoods and infrastructure- before “adding on”. Yes put in a park/marina but putting an isolated skyscraper on that site would give the building a false sense of importance.
When you drive down main street going east. Your view is terminated by the Soldiers and Sailors monument. It is an architectural device to signify “something important” is happening up there- so lets go look.
A highrise just states “Wow! I have 650sqft condo”.
There is only one candidate in the Mayor’s race who has come out and definitively stood against the Echo Harbour project and that is Paul Goldman.
From a press release received today:
*****
Goldman for Mayor – 13 June 08 – For Immediate Release
Goldman opposes Echo Harbor says “Grey/Jones/Pantele can run but they can’t hide” as Joe Louis pointed out many years ago.”
Goldman says that “as lawyers, my friends Mr. Grey and Mr. Pantele know that silence is considered acceptance” in these kinds of matters.
(Richmond) – Paul Goldman, candidate for Mayor, said today that “it is telling that I remain the only leading candidate for Mayor willing to protect the Riverfront and all it means to the future of our City by stating my clear and principled opposition to the Echo Harbor project that continues to receive political aid and comfort from my opponent’s continued refusal to join me in public opposition.”
In a statement, Paul continued:
“Given the news in today’s RTD concerning yet another twist and turn as regards City Hall and it’s activities over time, the Echo Harbour proceeds apace.
Indeed, as the project’s lawyer, James W. Theobald told the RTD today, the “the original plan” is the one they are still determined to build.
Clearly, the continued silence of Mr. Grey, Mr. Jones and Mr. Pantele is giving him and the Echo Harbour developers hope that should any of them get to be Mayor, then the sky is the limit (to use a pun) for this High Rise project that will destroy one of the great scenic treasures of Richmond.
So while I am the only candidate willing to do the right thing and state my public, principled opposition to Echo Harbour, and thereby protect the Riverfront for future generations, I believe the public is on my side.
It is time to say No, once and for all, to Echo Harbour.”
Mr. “NO Echo”
OK, you have the last word, sort of. I made my case, you made yours. I love Richmond and I’ll grant you the same.
gray,
I don’t speak for Bill Pantele. I don’t campaign for him in online. The question is. Is this the right thing for Richmond? On that we might disagree.
Do we both care deeply about Richmond. I think so.
Out of all the condo projects that have built in the past couple of years (like the high rise downtown, Nolde, St. Patrick’s and others), how many of these units have sold anyway? As I understand it, they aren’t selling and many of them have been rented out instead. I would love to see some stats on just how “occupied” these developments are.
How can you assume that the condos will be sell so easily? I just don’t buy it.
I’ve decided to leave this conversation for others. Should anyone wish to contact me I can be reached at paxham@hotmail.com.
I would like to add one more piece of information to the discussion- If I remember correctly, the developer also also offered lots of money to fix up Libby Hill Park and complete the canal walk at the lock. I use the park several days a week on my runs and I like that.
Also, I’m not sure I see much of a difference in design between what is proposed by Rockets Landing on the Richmond side (7-10 story buildings) and the Echo renderings on the web site listed above. Rockets is far from a ‘traditional” design- esp. 210 Rock, but it looks good and no one is complaining.
http://www.rockettsvillage.com/
Look closer, JT.
The highest tower in Echo is over 15 stories as I recall.
Also, Rocketts village is not obstructing views, while the Echo project — whose style seems more appropriate for Miami Beach — would simply obliterate the views citizens now have from Libby Hill.
Paul
I know you have said you are not going to respond further. One last point though. You said, and I quote: “The riverfront should benefit all Richmonder’s.” I would ask you how ALL of Richmond will benefit from a huge condo being built along the riverfront vs. a public park on the water? The only thing I an many others have gotten from recent condo development along the river is a chance visit to Blackfinn filled with polo wearing UR students/graduates (no offence to UR student…I went to UVA). Point is why not support something that will benefit all of Richmond, not a select few, while leaving a historical view intact. I like others here would support development on the site if it were appropriate in scale to the surrrounding properties, etc, but this is not the case.
g- I would suggest looking at the development Rockets is proposing only two blocks (approx.) from the Echo site. You probably need to go to the Rockets Reception bldg. and ask to see the Richmond side of what they are proposing. It has two (I think) 10+ story bldgs. that look great. Therefore, I wouldn’t say the Echo proposal is not”… appropriate in scale to the surroundings properties,…” It will actually fit in nicely when Rockets is complete.
btw- After the Irish Festival I thought Blackfin was supposed to be an Irish Pub- not a sports bar. Very disappointing.
The developers are my enemies as long as they press for Echo Harbour to be built as originally designed. In that case, I propose the gallows be ressurrected at 16th and Broad specifically for Ross et al and their supporters. Then we can bury them at that site and VCU can pave all they want over them.
Echo Harbour is simply the wrong development for the site. It would be a wall at the end of the hill which would destroy the panoramic view of the city that many enjoy. The horizon would be broken and a select few would get the view unbroken. The Canal Walk can be extended the right way through this property. It can be developed to fit its surroundings and not be built as a tower. The developers of the proposed buildings just below Jefferson Hill Park on both the 1800 and 1900 blocks of Marshall knew what was appropriate for the site. Imagine that view hindered by towers. I can’t think of too many cities that have viewsheds like we do and I can’t imagine any reason that justifies destroying them. The developers and those associated with Ross’ Echo Harbour need to go back to the drawing board and think about the future instead of the money they’ll make for the moment.
Ross already has a building downtown. Maybe he should go back and fill in some of those ugly surface lots with towers. Maybe he should get in the business of building on Shockoe Bottom’s empty lots. No towers there, but they can generate tax revenue for the city much better there with condos, apartments, and retail. There are places all over the city that could be built to increase the city’s tax base… but those places are still being ignored. The riverfront should belong to the people forever.
Should Echo Harbour get the green light from the city, sacrificing one of the city’s public cherished views for some man’s greed, they might as well sacrifice Libby Hill Park itself for a hilltop condo project.
I support what Cadeho has said, though I wouldn’t waste good asphalt on top of George Ross. Seriously…what we have is a battle between greed versus civic responsibility. Rockett’s Landing has used the zoning setback to have their highrise buildings approved by the City. That’s OK considering the viewshed that we all are concerned about. Echo Harbour is going to do whatever they can to go forward with their original plan, so the neighborhood and all of the East End must stay vigilant and fight this project with whatever it takes from here on out.
Bill Hartsock,
To that measure, has there been or would anyone consider some sort of organization/meeting in the vein of “concerned citizens against irresponsible and lavish development of one of our cities greatest resources”
seriously. lets have a meeting.
Yikes- It sounds like I may end up under pavement soon.
Just one more request- have g, Bill Hartsock, or Cadeho, ever met with the developers of Echo or Rockets to express concerns and negotiate for design concessions? I’m curious as to how many residence on the Hill have actually meet with these people and discussed their concerns before threats of burial are thrown around?
Bill- the high rises proposed by Rockets would most definitely destroy the view sheds of Fulton Bottom and Fulton Hill. Why was no one protesting that development?
The Church Hill Association hosted a meeting with the developers last year and expressed the group’s concern at that time. CHA voted to not support the development as proposed, but did suggest a height limit of 60 feet. We also met with the staff of Rockett’s Landing and were given a presentation on the new buildings with the proposed height specifications. The group voted to support the proposal. The residents of Church Hill have been very active and have been hospitable to the developers in their proposals. JT…maybe you should attend community meetings and see what is really going on. Don’t take potshots at people who are being proactive in protecting their neighborhood. I hope that the Fulton Hill group will express their concerns as CHA has done.
No no my friend. No potshots were fired- except to protect anyone from being buried under good asphalt. =)
Just curious to why negotiation and compromise are not getting the energy and creativity given to defeating Rockets and Echo.
“Just curious to why negotiation and compromise are not getting the energy and creativity given to defeating Rockets (sic) and Echo”. – There is no attempt to defeat Rockett’s Landing or Echo Harbour. What is being asked for is an appreciation for the quality of the viewshed we have from Libby Hill Park. The residents of Church Hill, through the Church Hill Association, have had many rational discussions with the developers of Echo Harbour and Rockett’s Landing, and hope to have more. JT, you, obviously, have a simplistic approach to how a neighborhood association operates. I suggest you come to the meetings and get involved, even if you may not live in the neighborhood.
Bill- I’m not sure why you keep trying to find something negative in my post. Why are you hypothesizing on my views/understanding of neighborhood organizations- i.e CHA?
By threatening to pave over individuals, assuming questions are potshots, and trying to define my views on neighborhood organizations as simplistic, I will assume you want to take this discussion to a level I don’t really want to go.
As a member of CHA and 15 year resident of our neighborhood I only hope you dont have the same reaction to others who seek clarification on this important issue.
Best of luck.
“The mayor has accused council members Pantele, Tyler, and McQuinn of conflicts of interest for accepting campaign contributions from the developers and others involved with Echo Harbour.”
Why is no one speaking up on this issue? And why the McQuinn silence on the entire project?
Because McQuinn’s been bought; which is why I’m not voting for her anymore.
JT, you have to reread what I said. You’d only be hanged and paved if you support the project as is with no compromises or redsigns not to have such a huge impact on the view and to look like Richmond instead of a beachfront hotel.
I don’t think anyone wants to destroy the project, but it has to be done the right way. I don’t think anyone has any problems what-so-ever with Rocketts Landing or any of their proposed towers. I can’t wait for their 13 story building at Nicholson and Main. It’s not blocking any views because it’s far enough away. Nothing is at the foot of Powhatan Hill Park that destroys its view of downtown and southside. Rocketts is far enough away that the view is enhanced and not stolen.
The RTD reports that the Williams Bridge Company, whose heavy steel manufacturing plant is clearly visible from Libby Hill, is moving it’s Manassas operations to Richmond.
Vice President Marianne Pastor heavy industry does not fit in with the neighbors in Manassas.
“Quite candidly, the real estate we’re sitting on is not necessarily at the highest and best use fabricating steel,” Pastor told the Times-Dispatch. “We aren’t exactly the darlings of the neighborhood.”
What is your point, Paul? (I know that sounded rude, I did not intend to sound rude, I just want to know what you are getting at.)
Thanks for asking and no, I’m not offended.
My point is that Libby Hill Park is not the serene view of Richmond on Thames. It is a nice place, one of my favorites, to which I bring all visitors, but a quick glance around takes in a gritty urban environment.
Without rehashing all the previous arguments, I believe a major investment like Echo Harbor brings value to the city and doesn’t destroy the serenity of Libby Park. I also think it would open up access to the river to many people. The Capitol Trail could still run along the river. People could picnic or dine riverside.
If you (not you personally) are opposed to it you need to consider what the short term and long term costs are to driving away that investment. Too many people hurl epitaphs, but don’t have answers.
I’ve got answers. Nobody is against the Capital Trail along the river. That can happen WITHOUT towers. People can picnic WITHOUT towers. The public can have access to the river WITHOUT a private development. No one said the view from Libby Hill was about “serenity” and why the view should not be walled off at the foot of the hill and sold to a select few. No it’s not pastoral. It’s a grand PANORAMIC view of the city, an urban place, and it belongs to the PUBLIC. I love the architecture of the Williams Bridge Company building. I’ve taken many pics of it from Libby Hill. I’ve taken pics of stuff was off near the horizon.
We can invest in better, smarter development and Echo Harbour is not either one of those.
Paul
could you acknowledge the fact that there are plenty of opportunities for viable commercial and residential development within the city near the river? i am a firm believer that constructing highrise condos on the water is not the only way to make money in this town. i would be much more supportive of a smaller scale project which was mixed use. we really could use some dining options on the waterfront, etc. I have to agree with Cadeho on this one, I think we definitely can come up with something better than what Echo Harbor is. I do not believe the best way to open up the river to many people is by planting a private development all along the river. not everyone can afford a 400k condo to get their James River fix, you know. and by the way, it may not be the view from Richmond on the Thames, but there is a great view from Libby Hill, esp. at night. The key here is that there is a VIEW (gritty as you may think it is), it is there none the less for everyone in the city to enjoy and take in on a nice summer evening. This development, which is completely to large fit in will, simply put obscure this view. That is my take on it, but I would be more than happy to have the developers show me what the project will actually look like from Libby Hill. Ross and company if you are listening, get something out there for the public to see, or go home. Right now my biggest issue is the lack of transparency on the part of the developers.
could you acknowledge the fact that there are plenty of opportunities for viable commercial and residential development within the city near the river?
Where would those be?
i am a firm believer that constructing highrise condos on the water is not the only way to make money in this town
So am I.
we really could use some dining options on the waterfront,
I agree.
not everyone can afford a 400k condo
Certainly no me.
there is a great view from Libby Hill, …(gritty as you may think it is
As previously stated, I love Libby Hill, grit and all. It’s our oldest and most historic neighborhood, but it is also in the heart of an urban area
we definitely can come up with something better than what Echo Harbor is
Where are your investors?
show me what the project will actually look like from Libby Hill
I’d like to see that too.
Hey, Paul – in regards to WHERE there are opportunities, specifically for Echo Harbor – why not flip it to the other side of the river at Ancarrow’s Landing? I don’t mean to be entirely flippant (note I said entirely). Manchester is supposedly coming up and around. Granted, the immediate area around Ancarrow’s Landing is industrial, but in my memory, the area where Rockett’s is now was a wasteland when I first moved to Church Hill.
The problem here, as I see it, is that investors are seeing that Church Hill, Tobacco Row and it’s neighbors, plus Rockett’s, are now successful, hence they want to build on that success, not other less fertile ground at the moment. There are probably quite a few opportunities if one takes into account the areas on the south side of the James River.
Celeste,
I agree that we should look at other areas. Have you driven down to Ancarrow’s and seen the area that you have to go through? Also, the sewage treatment plant is not exactly the best of neighbors and will not help property values! I don’t want to see Echo Harbour take our view, but Manchester, is not, unfortunately, the answer. I think River Towers had the right idea many years ago. The south end of the Lee Bridge could be our Roslyn (on the Potomac, south of Georgetown in DC for the newcomers in the area). Just a thought.
why not flip it to the other side of the river at Ancarrow’s Landing?
Two words – Slave trail
The problem here, as I see it, is that investors … want to build on that success
That’s what investor’s do.
The south end of the Lee Bridge could be our Roslyn
I’m guess Scott B and some others on Oregon Hill would object to that. The fact is most of the James is off limits. We have a wonderful James River Park System which we don’t fund or staff. The new Master Plan sets aside the remaining waterfront as park land. Meanwhile Richmond needs million’s of dollars to repair it’s infrastructure and schools.
Whatever is built there will essentially be there forever. I don’t mind waiting a few years for the right project to come around. I want to see the area developed but we can do better than Echo Harbor.
I have a list of other locations for developments to help bring money to the city near the river.
Chapel Island: Maybe they can find a way to build over the tank that’s just sitting there and impacting access to the river for the public. Build Echo Harbour there with towers. It’s look great from I-95. Also, a museum dedicated to Richmond’s nautical history would be fitting there because of the Trigg Ship Company.
Dock St: What a wasteland are the blocks east of 21st. At the downtown master plan charrette, I suggested at my table something I’ve always envisioned for the floodwall itself. Build mixed-use development straddling the floodwall. Dock St could be lined with shops above flood level with parking below which have the façades of storefronts. They could build more condo towers over the floodwall along the canal near 14th and the triple crossing as well as the Reynold’s/Alcoa parking lot.
The Alcoa site: Once Alcoa moves, the land along the canal will be open for development into a canalside village. I also suggested at the charrette following through with plans to connect the original canal or create an extenstion to connect with the Haxall. Then if we can convince NewMarket Corp to stop hording the old canal bed for themselves, new locks could be created at 5th and Tredegar and the canal reconstructed there to at least Maymont (again wrestling the canal away from other companies and property owners). I’d rather reconstruct the canal all the way to Buchanan or maybe just Lynchburg and have canal batteaux cruises. The whole canal down to the Richmond Dock could be used. Then one can hop on a cruise from here to Norfolk and back.
The Richmond Dock: Again at the charrette, I suggested an idea a few of us at RichmondCityWatch and Urban Planet would love to see. Line the dock with what we call “ship shops.” They can be various types and styles of ships.
Foundry Park: While the Federal Reserve and MeadWestvaco are building on the site, the 5th and Tredergar side is completely free for(a)tower(s) and shops.
Proposed Echo Harbour site: Again at the charrette, I recommended a public aquarium be built. Tall ships can dock there and those cruises to Norfolk can start there.
Main St from Peebles to Nicholson: While I believe Rocketts Landing will be developing this area, I can imagine seeing that curve after Nicholson on the east side lined with a retail village. Restaurants could be built over Water St like the Intermediate Terminal builing. Rocketts is going to transform that entire area into an economic powerhouse for the city in a more responsible manner than Echo Harbour.
Main and 25th: Why is there a vacant lot left at that corner? Why hasn’t another building been built? It’s been fenced off for about 12 years! Then across the street is no better. Those lots are screaming for development.
Main and Peach: A midrise condo or mixed-use development of 5 or 6 stories can rise across from Rockettsview.
Dock and Pear: They recently demolished a building at this corner. I’m not sure what plans they have for it, but if they don’t, here’s another site.
Williamsburg Ave: We still need to find some use for the Fulton Gas Works. It could make the city millions. There’s also a warehouse across the street just screaming for new life.
South of Ancarrow’s Landing: I have heard that this is being eyed for development. I have walked this area from the park southward directly across Rocketts Landing. While it is along the route of the Colonial Pipeline, streets could be built on top of it instead of doing like they did in the west end by putting people’s yards over it. A development here would compliment Rocketts Landing if not developed by the same people. The water treatment plant as far as I have been able to find, does not smell from Brander St, nor I-95. If it smelled, Libby Hill to Powhatan Hill would be unbearable in a west-southwest breeze. The main culprit for any smell is the paper mill. There’s also another industrial site along I-95 too far south of the water treatment plant that smells like a stockyard (perhaps that’s what it is).
Paul, I hope I found your answers and your opportunities for viable commercial and residential development within the city near the river that eldued you so long.
Cadeho – wow. What a list. I’ll be interested in seeing what further conversation it brings here.
Paul (and Bill) – I figured the slave trail would shoot down that idea, but only if someone tried to built right on it. Cadeho has offered so much more.
And yes, Bill, I have driven over there, not just directly to Ancarrow’s but all around. I disagree with the idea that the sewage treatment plant knocks Manchester out of the contenders, and I leave the rest of the argument to Cadeho, who sounds very involved and as if he’s done a lot of homework, plus he attended the charrette.
If you want to build in those places, get your investors together, get in line for years of hearings, environmental and traffic studies. In the mean time we have a developer who wants to build in Richmond now. Future develops are watching and waiting. Why build in such a hostile environment when virgin farmland is just waiting to be ripped up a few miles to the east and no-one will complain. The fabled view of cement works, steel fabrication, smoke stacks and city skyline will be preserved and the few folks who live near Libby Park will benefit.
You’re mistaken, the general public will benefit from the view, not a select few who want a condo. You conveniently discarded the answers and opportunities you requested as if Echo Harbour is the only development that will ever come along and will be the savior to the city and riverfront.
It’s not a hostile environment for developers, just that development/developer. I’m sure all the places I listed if considered would clear every hurdle. Besides, you seem as if you don’t like urban views. Please stay away from Libby Hill Park, Chimborozo Park, Jefferson Hill Park, The Virginia War Memorial, Oregon Hill Park, Gambles Hill, Powhatan Hill Park, or any hill in Richmond with a view if you detest views or urban life so. If you think the only vista worthy of preserving is one that looks upon a pristine landscape, the mountains are only a relatively short drive.
All we ask is George Ross and his goons redesign and consider what Richmonders regard as important, not his pockets.
“Please stay away from Libby Hill Park, Chimborozo Park, Jefferson Hill Park, The Virginia War Memorial, Oregon Hill Park, Gambles Hill, Powhatan Hill Park, or any hill in Richmond with a view if you detest views or urban life so.”
I’ve lived on Chimborazo and loved it. I love Libby Hill. I look out my window at the James River and the Jefferson. It’s not a pristine view, but I value it. Living in cities means complromise. It also means toleration and respect for differing opinions.
Again, get your investors together and your lawyers. Prepare for years of hearings, cheap shots from politicians and activists. Then build you projects
Paul
you have hit right on it. the big point is that there are a lot of people out there who have a different vision of what responsible development is, and are more than willing to wait for it. i for one am not willing to jump on board the George Ross train just because the are the only ones out there (which they are most definitely not, there are many examples of great redevelopment going on in the city) and are ready to build a monstrosity tomorrow. oooooohhhhh…money money money. some things i value much, much, more.
re Paul’s comment: “Why build in such a hostile environment when virgin farmland is just waiting to be ripped up a few miles to the east…”
So these developers are giving us a choice of destroying a historic view or tearing up the environment, i.e. farmland, in the county? They sound like nice people worthy of respect.
money = new ADA schools, safer streets, COLAs for retireees, a staff for the JRPS, affordable housing and lower tax rates. Those are things worth valueing.
“these developers are giving us a choice”/i
No, that is the choice we have been making for 40 years. We get to choose now.
p.s. The original post contained this quote,
“a joint project that would include moving Dock Street to allow the shifting of the condominium towers out of the view from Libby Hill Park and expanding public access to the river along the property”
There’s been a lot of condemnation of something nobody has seen yet. Maybe we should bet some drawing so we know what we are argueing about.
“I’ve lived on Chimborazo and loved it. ”
And where in Church Hill do you live now, Paul?
Paul
I would love to see some drawings so we could know what we are talking about. Unfortunately, after years of talk of this development, there has never been such a rendering. This is what I find shady about the whole thing.
There have been massive amouts of development in the past few years in Richmond. But rejecting this one monstrosity is going to doom the city?
I live downtown.
here, here j. saying no to one development will not doom our city. i personally don’t feel it will discourage developers either. what it will discourage is irresponsible and dishonest developers from bringing trash into the city.
By the way – their latest plan includes moving Dock Street. Moving it WHERE? And paid for by whom? Moving a street is not that easy, (the city can’t even keep up with the potholes on Dock Street!!!!!) and Dock Street is now heavily traveled – I use it coming home every day, heading east to 21st Street where I turn north to Church Hill. Am I the only person who thinks that’s a nutty idea, without any further info? How many other developers say ‘oh we’ll just move the street’?!
Tobacco Row and Rocketts were years and years in the planning, and their plans were made very public. Plus, the late Bill Abeloff had many many backers, and he was riding a wave about adaptive reuse of old manufacturing buildings, for both projects. My sense, and it’s just that, is that these folks are just trying to piggy back onto something, but they have not shown the public much in the way of plans/renderings/etc.
They’ve had about 3 renderings, none of them showing a view from Libby Hill. That shows just how much thought they gave into defeating the argument that it’ll block the view. They supposedly redisgned the building by moving a tower west so the view of the bed wouldn’t be impacted… and it was never going to be impacted. Ross doesn’t seem to know or grasp what a panoramic view is and why people who like landscapes/cityscapes flock to places on high. It’ll be a wall, well two tapered walls at the end of the hill. I’d also like to know where and how would they move Dock St. How would moving the street make the building any better? Ross et al have been stubborn and shady with this development. It is as if he’d rather rape the city for his own benefit.
It simply amazes me that there are people out there perpetuating nonsense about the city somehow earning a rep as being unfriendly to developers. Only on Mars, folks.
Meanwhile, it is street-level, grassroots events such as Curated Culture’s First Friday that have been transforming downtown, not willy-nilly development and endless subsidies and perks to campaign contributors.
Try a little experiment the next time you are at a candidate’s forum: Ask the would-be mayors (especially those who have been in a seat of power for seven years) what they have done to help support First Fridays.
We know these leaders can find tax dollars to spend on such things as “Party Patrols” and endless subsidies to CenterStage. We know they can find $600,000 to give to connected property owners based on mere “letters of intent.” We know that they can find millions in taxpayer dollars to give to expanded convention centers that destroy huge swaths of historic Richmond and fail to meet their original projections. We know they can stand by twiddling their thumbs while the Broad Street CDA reneges on promises and wastes millions and leaves us without downtown parking.
But ask these leaders what they’ve personally done to help find funding and resources for First Fridays– something that is actually transforming and changing downtown for the better — and get ready for the silence. [The city doesn’t mind taking credit for FF though – have you noticed?]
At this point, you can bet that if a council or mayoral candidate hasn’t been clear with voters about his/her stance on the Echo Harbour project, that he or she will support the project once the election is over. So if you have questions about where a candidate stands on the issue, it is time to demand a clear statement from them.
I attended the CHA meeting where the developers’ PR team presented the Echo Harbor plan. They had an ex pro-football player with them to “kick off†the presentation (everybody likes football, right?). One of their attorneys explained why the zoning ordinance restricting heights is a bad law. An architect gushed about the beauty of the proposed high-rise towers. Several local project partners told us how lucky we are that the developers were willing to bless Richmond with such a grand project.
But unfortunately for the Echo Harbor folks, the meeting did not go well. Their slick hustle resembled a wild-west medicine show, and the neighbors were hostile at being treated like rubes who just fell off the turnip truck. They asked disturbing questions about who the principal developers are and how the project will be financed. Their audacity was offensive to the Echo Harbor reps who refused to answer such inappropriate and annoying questions.
At one point the presenters displayed drawings of how the viewshed would look from Libby Park. Then a CHA member presented his own drawings of how it would really look, according to calculations made from plans the developers submitted to the city. As things went from bad to worse, several residents demanded to know whether the city is going to pay for the roads and infrastructure necessary for the project. One cynic even suggested that taxpayers could actually end up as losers if the project is built.
The meeting was not a complete disaster, however. The parish house was packed to the rafters with concerned Church Hillians. After the vote was taken and the smoke cleared, 2 people had actually voted in favor of the project. While this must be comforting to the Echo Harbor publicity team, don’t expect them to show up at a CHA meeting again any time soon. And forget about seeing any pictures of how the viewshed will look from Libby Park.
Thus, the Echo Harbor project is stalled due to opposition from city zoning administrators, the mayor, and the citizens. The developers’ only recourse now is to buy enough Council votes to override their opponents. Their chances are pretty good, though, given the city’s sordid history of ignoring residents in favor of developers.
The bottom line, and the purpose of my post, is that overriding an existing law (the Zoning Ordinance) requires a super majority in City Council. Four council members must vote against the project in order to kill it. Can you think of 4 councilors who will oppose it? I can’t.
Ciao,
Bridg
Great post Bridg.
Ditto, Gray.
One question Bridg. Is four a super majority? There are nine council members. Also, is height still an issue? I don’t have a clue what the latest proposal involves so far as height (perhaps they haven’t said?!). All I’ve seen is the ‘move Dock Street’ which I STILL think is a nebulous idea at best and have no clue who would pay for it.
Thanks, Gray. Celeste, 5 votes is a simple majority. A super majority is two thirds, or 6 votes. That’s the number the developers need. Council could also do some horse trading such as one member agrees to abstain if another will vote a certain way.
I’m not sure how height figures into it at this point. Maybe they could make the ground lower next to the river or make it higher on Libby Hill. As for moving streets, why don’t they just move Libby Park a little to the west instead?
Maybe they could build a series of giant mirrors that would bounce the view around Echo Harbor so we couldn’t even see the building. They could hire David Copperfield.
I would like to add to Bridg’s very creative description of that CHA event- to which I was present. I would agree with all of it except a few key descriptive words.
The presentation was a little campy. I agree the developers went over board in making us feel a little “privileged” at having their project in our neighborhood.
However, the drawing presented to the good people of Church Hill in that packed parish house was done using CADD- by a local architecture firm. If you don’t believe them to be accurate we only need to request an elevation and give them to any impartial architecture or engineering firm to validate them. The opposing drawing referred to as representing what things would “really look” was just that- a sketch by hand done w/o prior knowledge of the buildings latest design phase or representative of what was presented that night. And to top it off- it was a terrible architectural drawing. (I apologize to whoever worked on the drawing) In my opinion, that other drawing was as campy and disingenuous as the pomp and circumstance from the developer.
Secondly, there were several newspaper articles leading up to the presentation in Style, RTD, and the Free Press describing City Council, the Mayor, and our Planning Dept. as either supporting the project, having no objections, or simply of no opinion. So it was apparent that the developers had gotten a green light from our City officials well before they came to our packed meeting. Which I might add, should have been where they started.
As we push to have all Church Hill residence participate in shaping development in our community lets take the high road and not resort to gimmicks and showmanship to make our voices heard. (I wanted to use smoke and mirrors but I like J’s use of that much better)
On another very important and related note:
One of the real issues here is zoning. Regardless of the passions for the neighborhood we all have very specific rights on our property given to us under current zoning laws and regulations. Sometimes these rights don’t match with our vision of what our neighborhood should be. Please go to
http://www.ci.richmond.va.us/departments/communityDev/DownTownMasterPlan.aspx
to learn more about our Planning Department’s current initiative to implement a Form-Based zoning code. This is a proactive approach to zoning that will really help coordinate our vision for the City and what is allowable by zoning.
Cheers