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
Oakwood Heights drawings and details
08/22/2008 6:51 PM by John M
The folks at Fulton Hill Properties have made available the new drawings for the proposed Oakwood Heights condo project (72.8MB PDF) prior to their upcoming CAR presentation on Tuesday.
I know some of the folks near this proposed development are a little anxious about what is proposed, and I am not an architectural expert, but I think the proposed project looks pretty cool. Plus I like the L.E.E.D (environmentally friendly design) elements that are being proposed. I wish both parties luck in the on-going battle royale, but I wonder what Church Hill would look like if those folks who owned homes on the hill in 1870s refused to allow “new, high-density” development on the empty lots of Church Hill (“think of all the extra horse-manure on our streets” “where will these new residents park their buggies?” “I don’t think that the proposed Folk Victorian style works with the existing Italianate and Second Empire style homes”)?
The “sketch” is too fuzzy and vague to tell exactly how the buildings will look or what materials are being used. Granted, the general look is typical Italianate filling our neighborhoods but what is up with the “modern” and out of place studio/atrium style third floor additions?
I am bothered by the fact that the plans call the 1 lane alley that is currently in existance, a 2 lane road. What this means is that the city will have to take property owned and maintained by the neighbors and widen the alley into the thourough fare the site plans call for.
The city should get out of the business of granting these zoning exemptions. As it now stands, that site could be transformed into a strip mall or a strip club… and zoning could do nothing because someone granted this exemption to the developer.
Eric, those are actually a proposed 4th floor. Yes, you read that right. Their plan is to have a basement level condo, then a 2 story version and the 4th level will be something loft-like I believe.
Mansard roofs are actually planned for the 4th floor which is not in keeping with the surrounding block or neighborhood.
I heard that the basements will be rent by the hour… elegance meets prostitution and crack….
Below is an excerpt from today’s press release issued by the Historic Richmond Foundation. Note the HRF stance on infill and the controvercy over precendence in O&H Districts.
PRESS RELEASE August 26, 2008 10:30 AM
Historic Richmond Foundation Opposes 33 Unit Condominium Development in Chimborazo Historic District
Richmond, VA — Historic Richmond Foundation (HRF) is joining with Chimborazo historic neighborhood residents and the Church Hill Association on Tuesday, August 26th, 2008 to speak against the proposed high-density, multi-family residential project at the Eastern-most ends of Broad and Marshall Streets.
The project, conceived by Margaret Freund at DGM Properties, is facing its third appearance since December 2007 before the Commission of Architectural Review (CAR).
“This project does not embrace the single family character of the Oakwood historic district,†said Mary Jane Hogue,Executive Director of HRF. “The residents need to have a voice because they made a personal investment in their homes fully knowing that they would have to adhere to the design guidelines of a historic district. Their protection from unruly infill not consistent with the character of their own individual buildings is being jeopardized by this project.â€
The proposed condominium development jeopardizes the historic integrity of a 118-year-old structure at 3626 E Broad St, which the applicant desires to incorporate into a 12-bay row house design.
Although the construction of row housing is a highly efficient construction technique to the benefit of the applicant, it is, however, a significant departure and irreversible change to the consonance of urban buildings with established plot dimensions in Oakwood.
HRF does not support projects that do not meet the guidelines for infill practices in Old & Historic Districts, as they set precedent and question the integrity of our city’s oldest surviving neighborhoods.
In a meeting between the neighborhood and the applicant last week, it was specifically mentioned by the applicant that, “this project is intended to set a precedent for the future of historic districts in the City of Richmond by building a multi-family sustainable design.â€
HRF realizes that community change is inevitable; however, sustainable growth is intentional. While each individual property in a historic district should be recognized as a physical record of its own time each historic district as a whole needs to be recognized as a flow of space and not a series of insular and incompatible boxes.
CONTACT:
Mary Jane Massad Hogue
Executive Director
804.833.2659
I see this project as exactly the type of development that is needed in Richmond. Contemporary design is not inherently incompatible with older structures. Richmond may be old by American standards, but cities throughout the rest of the world manage to keep many examples of historic structures along side contemporary work while maintaining vibrant and active urban environments.
This gets back to what constitutes a “historic” designation. Keep in mind that our neighborhood is on the historical registry, not just a few houses. That said there is a sense of responsibility and pride to keep our historic homes and neighborhoods “in tact” which means restoration rather than replacement.
In those cities you speak of you will find no sense of honor or respect for the older structures. They hold their breath until one come to disrepair in hopes of demolition so “new” structures can replace them.
If you want “new” or retro structures, put them in communities other than those filled with historic homes or out in the suburbs.
Eric
To clarify since I hit the send button too soon… what I am saying by “new” doesn’t necessarily mean an infill that has been designed and approved to fit the community. Not something that is a hybrid of sorts – a Frankenstein of modern with historic cobbled together. Like that freak of a building built across and between the Pohlig Box Factory and CVS on 25th Street. To me it is a WTF moment each time I see that building!
Eric
Can anyone take a stab at explaining what happened at the CAR meeting last night? I was there, so my lack of knowledge is not because I didn’t participate! The decision was to “defer”. The residents and the developers and, quite honestly, the CAR committee, didn’t seem too clear on what that meant for the future of this project.
Chimbo, where on the plan does it refer to the alley as a two lane road?
Kathleen:
To “defer” means that the CAR is not satisfied with the information that they have received or lack there of. As I understand it (I was not there), among other things, Maggie & Co. could not tell the CAR where they will be placing the AC units. That’s a pretty big oversight on Maggie’s part.
The CAR has deferred a vote until FHP satisfies all the requirements of the CAR guidelines (in CAR’s opinion). Maggie will have to come back to the CAR again to present her plans, at which time, the CAR will determine if they are eligible to receive a Certificate of Appropriateness. If not, they will defer again until the plans comply.
Either way, this is going to go to Council on appeal. If Maggie gets her COA, then the neighbors will appeal to Council. If CAR denies the plans, Maggie will appeal to Council.
The CAR wants to avoid an appeal to Council as long as they can because as much as this is the process, it looks as if the CAR isn’t doing it’s job. CAR members are appointed by Council and are entrusted to preform there duties so that ideally, the Council won’t have to get involved.
Appeal to Council is a last resort, and the CAR, rightly so, tries to avoid this at all costs.
Thanks, Laura. I overheard someone saying that the deferral meant FHP couldn’t appeal but I didn’t understand why CAR did not outright deny when they had such a long list of items that were big concerns for them. The issue with the AC units came up toward the end of the very long meeting.
i personally think the buildings on 25th between main and franklin are a super cool example of merging the historic and the new. i’m not saying that i’m ‘all about’ this proposed plan, but i’m definitely not ‘all against’ it. i think that if they build them out of quality materials they could be pretty sweet.
Kathleen:
The last appeal to Council concerning a CAR denial was when a neighbor was told by the CAR that he had to replace windows in a house that he bought at auction because the former owner put in modern transom windows that were not approved by the CAR. The neighbor claimed that he was not liable for the windows, but the CAR claimed that he was (I’ve heard different reasons for the claims).
He appealed to Council, and the Council agreed with the neighbor and let him keep the windows.
The bottom line is that Council was not happy with “having to do the CAR’s job.” Several Council members were/are irritated with the CAR. But, that’s a story for another thread.
Suffice to say, the CAR’s had it’s feet held to the flames these days and they are being more prudent in their rulings.
I’ve been to a couple of CAR meetings as of late, and I would say that they are scrutinizing projects more closely.
Personally, I think this would be great for Chimborazo’s old and historic district.
It’s a fresh face, fresh look, and we need to be more open to ideas from developers. Please as residents of church hill let’s don’t get the reputation of Richmond. Holding people back simply because the houses aren’t going to look exactly as we’d like. This is obviously a very well thought out plan, has a lot of green ideas.
Don’t forget all of us want our homes to continue to improve in value. And for those of you who can’t see this as a step of improvement for that overgrown area.(what color are your glasses).
In reference to this house at 3626 East Broad Street, if you would like to salvage it. Y is it that the person who installed the man made siding, deck porch boards, and the extra window added on the west side of the house think that way?
The owner of this property has a right to do what he/she wants to do. The only reason for any of us to be concerned is if he/she were trying to build a developement that would attract crime.
The pictures I view here and the roomers I’m hearing, this isn’t that place.
Open your minds and be accepting of different ideas, don’t change exisiting historic homes, but new isn’t always bad.
As stated before the lame excuse of using 3626 East Broad as historic is quite funny. Someone renovate the house and we’ll have a real argument.
The developer obviously owns the house and even is willing to use it in the plan.
Thanks,
Actually, there *are* restrictions as to what an owner can do with a property in any of the city’s Old and Historic Districts. Check out the Richmond Old and Historic Districts Handbook and Design Review Guidelines (PDF) for more specific information.
I think it looks like a beach house from one angle, like one of those deck and railing monsters in Nags Head.
Several points are given about design, I see the main point is density of the development. The issue with parking, last I heard each unit if figured to have only one parking space with no area for guest parking. When was the last time you saw a household with one car? I know it would be PC to not have a car and only use public transportation… but get real.
To address #14: the developer is not showing the materials using in construction even thought CAR has asked to see samples several times.
you really hit the nail on a very revealing head with post 17. all the historic bullshit aside the old and histerical (spelling intentional) designation does impose restrictions on property owners ostensibly to promote historical authenticity. forcing people to do what is “right” is always couched in terms that obscure an organizations true aim;to tell you what to do with your own property. to paraphrase a famous dead guy:in every generation there are people who say they will rule well but make no mistake they mean to rule. somehow churchhill a neighborhood revitalized by individualists like chuck wrenn has become a haven for busybodies intent on foisting their vision of a historical community on the rest of us.so the next time somebody tells you all the pluses of historical designation remember that you are ceding control over your property to an organization that may or may not allow you to pursue your own aims regarding the prperty that YOU own. say what you will but MYOB. buddycorbett
Hi,
In reference to John in # 17, I know there are limitations in a historic district. My question is why were they not followed on this house in the first place. There’s nothing about 3626 E. Broad Street that appears even close to historic.
My comment was if the house were truly restored, folks would have a real argument. 3626 E. Broad St. isn’t restored it’s been somewhat remodeled.
man made siding, deck boarding for the porch and extra windows, added.
The restrictions I am quite aware of living across from Chimborazo Park in one of the most beautiful houses in church hill.
I myself moved to church hill for two reasons to salvage some of these grand old ladies, and also to enjoy the increase in value. We’d all be crazy not to enjoy our property values increasing, and this is a movement in a direction for more value.
It is my dream in the not to distant future, we’ll have all of church hill restored. The area has far more potential than the fan ever will, we’re closer to downtown, the river, and the bottom.
Church hill is a grand neighborhood and we should work together. Open our minds to new ideas for some of this vacant land up here. (AND RESTORE THE REST OF THESE GRAND OLD LADIES BIG AND SMALL).
Thanks,