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
New Echo Harbor design is lower, similar
04/22/2009 6:48 AM by John M
The RTD has info and a rendering on the revised Echo Harbor design:
George Ross, a principal with USP Echo Harbour, said an architectural rendering from Libby Hill shows that Echo Harbour’s average 108-foot-tall eastern building would be about as far from a historically significant bend in the river as a 150-foot-tall residential building approved but not yet developed at Rocketts Landing would be on the bend’s other side.
The rendering, by architectural firm Baskervill, does not show Echo Harbour’s bigger western building, which would average 141 feet in height. The maximum height in previous proposals was 188 feet.
TAGGED: Echo Harbor
Funny they don’t seem to account for flooding with this photo. That whole area of walkway would be underwater. why do you think we have a flood wall in Shockoe Bottom? It is not there for decoration
1/ Where *exactly* is this? I couldn’t find a map – could someone draw the area onto http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=37.52518,-77.420826&spn=0.023791,0.04343&t=p&z=15 ?
2/ What about the vacancies in Richmond? http://www.cnbc.com/id/29350086?slide=11 pointed me to the census data, which I entered into http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=ptnSmPOSIEPtX3ekb-IvLfQ But as you can see, the variance is quite large (the middle line is the census result, the top and bottom line is the 90% confidence variance)
3/ Let’s say this is *not* working out and the building and park areas and waterfront walkways are going to be empty – I hope we don’t get a modern ruin/wreckage next to the old ones we already have.
I like the new design, and I’m also happy that this is at least a sign that the developer is willing to compromise/modify their design in order to accommodate preserving the view. Hopefully, this can end up being a win-win situation for all parties involved. I would like to see the other building in the rendering, though.
4/ Will condos be rented or owned? or to put it another way: if none of the condos are rented, the above statistics don’t apply, as they are for *rental vacancies*, and not for *houses or condos that can’t be sold right now*…
There big hope is people will move out of Tobacco Row to their settlement but when it Floods they will loose all those people because they will not want to live in a place where their car gets washed away or destroyed when the river crests
Thorston this project would be between the 95 Bridge and where Rocketts Landing is on the 5 right where they have the cement plant. I would extend all the way to the park area that has a canal section.
Sorry if I could not attach that to the map but they don’t let me do such things at work.
Caught portions of Frontline last night regarding runoff water and pollution. Definitely worth watching http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/poisonedwaters/view/ .
Any new development must be green. We can’t afford to poison our waters anymore.
What will be the enviromental impact of Echo Harbor on our waterways? Should we focus on keeping as much area on river banks as green as possible? I’m not an expert on going green or the enviroment but I would be glad to hear from folk in the know.
“I like the new design, and I’m also happy that this is at least a sign that the developer is willing to compromise/modify their design…”
I agree!
So many Richmonders are negative and resistant to any suggested change (i.e. the group that was upset about the conversion to apartments of the yellow house on Jefferson and 27th(26th?) because they would rather have a dilapidated building as people living there might have to Park A Car. Richmond has a lot of potential it will never reach if we are constantly fighting any sort of progress.
Having a walk along the river with shops and restaurants is the main thing that has been missing all along. This will add something to downtown that should have been built 30 years ago. It takes full advantage of the water location. Approvwe this soon. The thought of spending money to buy this property for park land is wrong. Money should be spent on the park land the city all ready owns instead. There is a great amount of river front park land currently available to everyone.
http://map.richmondgov.com/parcel/ has a good map tool to view the parcels – are we talking about E0000587003 and E0000587004 ?
it looks like the land there is about 10-15 feet above ground, while the Libby Park benches at the back fountain are about 150 feet high.
I was looking for public Libby Hill Park photos and found some at http://www.flickr.com/photos/100wordminimum/3020002108/, http://www.flickr.com/photos/100wordminimum/411837733/, http://www.flickr.com/photos/imrocknon/62989356/, and http://www.flickr.com/photos/imrocknon/62985935/
Unfortunately though the photos are great, they are copyrighted so you’re not allowed to copy and alter them.
However, http://www.flickr.com/photos/buztin/454718121/ shows Rockett’s Landing from Libby Hill Park, and I sketched in the area covered from that view at http://www.flickr.com/photos/tc_detecon/3465962802/
Is that how it’s going to look like?!
The people screaming for progress don’t live near or around the places they want to change but they feel that it has to change because they say so. I don’t think every project will help Richmond in the long run that is why they created the Master plan to be sure we have a Richmond that is not overdeveloped.Building something just to fill empty spaces is shortsided and tends to prove more harmful than leaving some stuff be. We have enough Condos and Apartments and I doubt they will want to make their places any more afforable than Rockett Landing or Tobacco Row so they will not be affordable unless you have 2 grand to spend a month on just rent or morgage.
I live in this area and think this is a great idea. I am all for progress. I think compromise has been gained through community involvement, but we should move forward before we become too good at keeping development and progress away. We are close to becoming a great city by leveraging our great assets…
Again, development opponents have pie-in-the-sky ideas on what should be put in place of anything being proposed by a private developer but they have no idea how it can be funded. Fact is the City has trouble maintaining the park land it already has. How do you expect it to be able to purchase this new plot of land, turn it into a park, and take care of it? The developers have compromised by knocking off an additional forty feet from the highest tower. They will be able to give the public access to the riverfront years ahead of the City and that’s assuming the City would ever even try and undertake that park project. Let’s look at reality here. 1. The view that will be interrupted will be of all the Southside factories. No one ever mentions how THAT doesn’t represent the view from the Thames in the least. 2. This will provide the public access to the river through the Capital Trail. The City has been balking on their end of the deal. A private developer will be able to get it done much more quickly. 3. Instead of expending tax revenue we don’t have on a park that will require further revenue to maintain, this will bring in much needed revenue in the form of property and retail taxes. This seems pretty cut and dry to me.
Remember, the area is currently zoned as a floodway, and for good reason. If you live nearby, as I do, you can attest to the fact the area floods very easily. The developers are trying to get council to change the zoning to residential.
I can remember driving by after a heavy rain and seeing the cars parked in the lot where the Annabelle Lee used to dock and the area was flood up to their windshields. And I am not talking about during a hurricaine – just a heavy rain.
Even a moderate rain causes flooding. I can not imagine what would happen to a car parked in a parking deck below sea (river?) level.
The rendering looks nice, but it only represents a fantasy.
I understand that everyone wants to preserve Richmond’s history and views, but without some new development Richmond will fall behind (even more). Change is good.
However, from the nature perspective… The architects need to respect the river and the land. The new design looks more considerate to the Earth.
As for the flooding… if someone spends that much money and doesn’t consider natural extremities then they will have to learn the hard way.
Won’t this development require that the city spend quite a lot of money to relocate the output of the sewer/drainage pipes that feed into the river? Could that money be better spend on building a park for the public?
Yes I’m sure these developers haven’t even given a second thought to flooding… Looks to me like the first level of parking/retail will be a minimum 15 feet above river level. The walkway will have water over it when the river gets to flood stages however all they have to do is pressure wash the concrete, clean up some sticks, and nothing is worse for wear.
and Tow away the Cars Jeff lets not forget that. Steve they never learn the hard way they tend to whine to the city and expect to be bailed out of their stupid mistake. It is cut and dry right up til the point they abandon the site and leave us to clean up after them. They want retail space and yet they can’t keep tenants in the spaces we already have all over Richmond. Filling in empty space is not the solution at this time. We don’t need the Condos nor the Shops so why build?
Tiny if this gets built and it floods I will provide the rubber raft if you provide the picnic lunch and we can watch stuff float away.
Before this goes through, the developer should have to show how it plans to deal with the flooding issue. Also, the developer should also show realistic estimates of how well these units will sell. I am not sure now is the right market for high-end condos in Richmond.
#15 – I couldn’t disagree more. Richmond *is* developing extremely quickly, and I for one applaud it. Just look at the progress in the bottom over the past few years to see it’s growth.
But why does “change” have to be condos, condos, and yet more condos? We have more than enough condos right now. They’re not selling. So let’s take a look a rehabilitating some of the other neglected structures in and around the area. Let’s add some new retail, restaurants, office space, recreational space, museums, etc.
Change does not equal new condos. The current plan does not have this area slotted for yet more stacked housing. Let’s be creative…
Rick, I agree. There are plenty of condos on the market across the city.
For those that have, don’t lump people for development together. I’d rather not see this project done and am for plenty of other projects. Just b/c I’m for/against one project doesn’t mean I want every piece of land developed (or not).
My uneducated guess is that we won’t see any significant retail in the downtown area until population density begins to pass 3000 people per square mile and median household income is above 30,000.
I think Jason nailed it. The issues in development have always been, residential first, and the commercial will follow. We tried for many years to get a grocery store in the Church Hill area, but no operator would bite as long as the demographics and the population base did not warrant it. After the Tobacco Row development was nearly built out did the numbers of residents work for an operator to get financing for a market. Johnny Johnson, not withstanding, the concept was good, once the population base would support the concept. Now we are seeing the proposals for Shockoe Center come along, with residential and commercial mix. I think the commercial will work as long as the residential is in place, whether it be renters or owners. Chances are, it will be renters with MCV at the top of the hill. Whatever…it’s bodies, that spend money and require services. Whether they go to baseball games or check out a museum is really not the issue. Those are flash in the pan activities. What counts is what is offered to permanent residents on a daily basis that supports their lifestyle and what they want to support.
We have bodies and more than enough people who own and rent but they want to build more but only places that cost as much or more than Tobacco Row. There is a finite number of people who will be able to afford those places and they currently either already own a home or Condo. We are not having an ingrowth of people who would be able to have a salary that could afford to live in the spaces that are already out there. Most rent down here is over 800 a month. anything cheaper you are in a studio apartment. Don’t believe me look it up for yourself.
They are laying off people left and right and we don’t have business that is replacing these lost jobs but we want to build more expensive housing that most will not be able to rent or own. Sounds like good economic planing and we will have even more vacant places thus dropping rental prices in spite of the companies who are hard pressed to keep people paying over 1000 a month for rent for less room. So far I see more tearing down than development. Call me negative or a cynic but for every Action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
#10, Thorsten, thanks for doing that! From what I’ve heard that’s just about exactly what I have imagined (although replace the reddish block with cement and glass). If you (meaning the plural you, not Thorsten necessarily) have actually been in that park, you will understand that the bend in the river is just one part of the view. And, while it may not be the Alps or the Eiffel Tower, it’s one of the best views that Richmond has left!
@ shockoe bottom dweller;
What’s wrong with 800-1100 a month for a 1 bedroom? Sounds reasonable to me if you are making a $45,000 a year or higher.
Per a study by ZVA the median household income(mostly single person households) in Shockoe Bottom is above $45,000 meaning a lot people deciding to move to Shockoe can afford these “expensive apartments” anyway.
Also, consider the fact the Shockoe Bottom is one of the fastest growing areas in the city. Despite your perception of incredibly high vacancy, rental rates of new and existing apartments in Shockoe Bottom continue to rise.
Um Jason it is not my perception.You like the People who run these apartments think they can charge the same rate as places like Tobacco row without giving the same benefits and many have left and I know many on their way out because though some parts of Shockoe Bottom are like Shockoe Slip not all of is worth the rent they charge. I managed to negotiate my rent and my rate is lower than many people. That will not last when the people who have no problem paying these prices move to the newer apartments and others refuse to pay for less just to live here.
Before I forget Jason here is an article you may have missed.
http://riverdistrictnews.com/2009/02/22/richmond-has-the-highest-rental-vacancy-rate-in-the-country/
Re: #10 and #26
The image created and posted on flicker is not entirely accurate. If you follow the link to the RTD story, a rendering of the view from Libby Park is provided. It is a large development but not quiet as dramatic as the drawing you provided.
Actually, the image is larger than appears on the front page of the RTD article. If you right click on the image and select “copy image location”, then paste the image into the URL line on your browser and load the image as a separate page, you can see the full rendering of the easternmost building and the impact it will have on the views from Libby Park.
One more rendering of the development from Dock Street is available at http://zodevdesign.deviantart.com/art/Echo-Harbour-110806902
(Thanks to blake_p for providing that link the Richmond Urban Planet forum page.)
I’m sorry but a quarter of rental units in the city being vacant is a bit ridiculous.
Please read this article:
http://www.richmondbizsense.com/2009/02/13/is-richmond-the-worst-residential-rental-market-in-the-country/
Is half your building or even a quarter of your building empty? I can’t say for sure but I would guess not.
I too feel this is a great opportunity for Richmond! Anyone who has been following the market will surely know that the condo market in Richmond is still thriving. The Times-Dispatch has done several articles on it in the last year. VCU & MCV bring in a lot of 20 and 30-something crowd that want a place in the city, not a house in suburbia. The reason downtown is the way it is, is because of the fear of “change.” I for one am glad to see the re-newed interest in downtown in recent years and hope the growth keeps heading in the right direction! Richmond needs to showcase the river, not hide it!
Showcase the river, as in, not hide it behind a monstrosity of a building? There are other, better ways to showcase the river than building this condo. I hate how people feel you are either against development or for it when discussing this issue. i am a 20 something Richmonder, and would love to see the downtown area I call home be developed, just developed RESPONSIBLY.
OK, my concern is not about the bend in the James… my concern is the uninterrupted panoramic view of the horizon, the largest of such view from land left in Richmond. You look down upon Manchester and southside… it is the last great view left in Richmond and they want to take it away. I’m glad Ross was willing to make some changes, but it could be lower still.
It is better than the original plan. Looks like the rendering from Libby Hill is aimed at the wrong view… if I’m not mistaken, do they have the new tower at Rocketts that hadn’t been built yet in the pic? It looks like it also would interrupt the horizon despite its distance from the hill…
g you would be correct if we were in an economy that was thriving but we are not so why build in a flood area then make it condos and shops both are not selling anywhere in Richmond? There are a finite amount of people who would be able to move there and with every lay off there are less. Sounds like a Tax writeoff and an eyesore needs averting at this time.
SBD-you misread my post. I am 100% opposed to the huge mistake of building a huge condo at the foot of Libby Hill.
I understand I was just adding they just need to let the property just go back to seed and not worry about any development it can become park land but that will probably not happen.
You can make it parkland, if that is the desire of more than a few people. Buy it. Buy it with targeted contributions to RRPF, earmarked for purchase and dedication of the land.
It seems like a simple case of the developers purchasing land, intending to use for a purpose for which it is not zoned. Does anyone believe the developers got assurances/promises concerning the rezoning? It just seems like a risky investment on their part, purchasing the land, etc when all it is zoned for is industrial.
It is not a development or no development question, zoning is a tool for controlling land use. One of the most important aspects of zoning is scale. There is a step down provision in our zoning that only allows so much height according to the narrowest width of the property. I believe the EH property could only be around 45 feet tall to be in compliance with that provision. They have asked not only for a change from M-1 (industrual) to residential status but also for a height restriction waiver of originally 200 feet, now 100 feet. This is grossly out of scale for the lot and the surrounding neighborhood. If you are familar with the location, the roof line of the proposed building would tower over the near by hill, and shadow all other neighboring buildings. Think of having a 15 story building next to your 2 story house, on a similar sized lot,this is what zoning is supposed to stop from happening. However, planning suggested that they could give them a waiver of up to 70 feet at the western end to 40 feet at the Eastern end. By their own admission they can’t turn at profit at these heights because they need 30 feet of open story underneath to meet floodway restrictions. To bad for them, but not all investment decisions are good ones and they have made a mistake. Not all development is good, just check out the congested messes of Northern Virginia, and Short Pump. Good planning leads to neighborhood we all can enjoy. Think of the compromises that were reached when the Market and CVS were put in at 25th and Main, the Pohlig Box building was called a “rat infested, derelict unusable building” by the developers, but now there are nice living spaces and very welcome, to scale, grocery and pharmacy, the same happened with the discussion over the McDonald’s and Exxon.
EH is not entitled to a complete upheaval of zoning and planning because they bought a wet restricted narrow strip of land on the river. And just for chuckles think about the Big Yellow W sign at the train crossing right outside the lot, every train that passes it is required by law to sound its whistle, it’s quite loud in the park imagine is outside your luxury condo window.
Please post.
THANK RACHEL FLYNN
A.C.O.R.N. and Richmond already owe a lot to Rachel Flynn and the City of Richmond’s
Department of Community Development. It has been wonderful to see City Hall so
responsive to and working on behalf of the residents (and taxpayers)– especially
in regard to the long process of creating a living, breathing Downtown Master Plan.
Knowing how difficult and precarious it can be to work with various committees,
government and outside entities, and elected officials, A.C.O.R.N. is asking its
supporters to contact the Mayor, Council Members, and the media to show support
for Ms. Flynn as a way of thanking her and her staff for the intensive work they
have been doing and continue to do for all of us in the face of demands from all
directions.
Please write a letter or send an email in support of Rachel Flynn, Director of Community
Development for the City of Richmond.
Heather, you made some good points, except I think you overexaggerated a bit the shadow effect that EH would create. First of all, EH is at the bottom of the hill, so if anything it would create a shadow on the hill – it’s not THAT tall – look at the rendering from the RTD. Secondly, there are no neighboring residential buildings that would be over-towered and shadowed by EH. Church Hill is on top of the hill.
Also, how would this be anything like Short Pump? I don’t know if you were trying to make a comparison between EH and Short Pump or just pointing out how poorly planned Short Pump is (another topic). This is infill/brownfield/wasteland development and not greenfield development. Another point, because greenfield development is so easily approved and comparatively, much easier to do, you in turn get a poor product (i.e. Short Pump – at least from a planning perspective). So, all of this protest for EH I think is a good and healthy thing. In the end, you’ll get a much better product. I think the changes they’ve made are great and I hope it’s approved.
And for those of you so concerned about losing your view, how about you sell your Church Hill home and buy a condo at EH – you’ll have the best view in town, ha.
Heather I live right next to Main Street Station so yes I can but they still built Condos next to the Highway and Train tracks. Most Developers don’t care if they sell the places facing away from the tracks way more for the view they will be able to afford to give the stuff by the tracks for a little less and they still win. Well 4EH you might not be able to afford it because it will be more expensive to live in a scenic section that it wou ld to own a house on Church Hill. That and when the James overflows the parking area you will probably need to buy a new car. With Rocketts Landing and the other Condo Complexes right on the James already you will have to really do a hard sell to get people to buy and in this economy most who could are looking for new jobs.
Curmudgeon your right on target there 2 thumbs up
That rendering looks a lot better than what is down there now.
4EH – b/c my home doesn’t overlook the river, but guess what, if i walk to the park, i have a wonderful view of the river. i’d like to think that to have that view i would NOT need to buy a condo.
4EH for your info there is 2-3 story apartment building on the site adjacent to EH that would indeed be living in the shadow of the proposed building. Why should the existing neighbors lose their bright airy apartments? This is what good planning prevents.
And since when is a 141 foot building “not that tall” quote “The rendering, by architectural firm Baskervill, does not show Echo Harbour’s bigger western building, which would average 141 feet in height.” They are cleverly showing only the shorter section.
The proposed building is enormous. It would stretch from the aforementioned apartments all the way to the cement towers. Standing in Libby Hill Park one would be unable to see not only the river but the whole Southside horizon, except for a tiny sliver of the bend. This is not exaggeration it is what the Developers showed the Planning commission on Monday night.
Of course I was being sarcastic about “selling your Church Hill home for a condo at EH.†Though for some, that could be a reasonable option. By the time it is built (that’s if it’s ever built), the economy would hopefully be turned around. I don’t think this is a major concern.
I think the view from Libby Hill is also great, but IMO compromising part of that view is worth it. I would have liked to see the developer’s presentation, but judging from the renderings provided in the RTD, the view of the bend, which I think is the best view, would not be obstructed. Beyond the river, looking straight ahead, I don’t see much of anything that attractive (industrial land), except for the wide horizon.
Heather, are you referring to the Rockettsview Apts. on Mains St.? Perhaps you’re right, I think they would be overshadowed by EH. I don’t think good planning can prevent this though – you would be compromising on density if every building were to not be overshadowed by others. Also, did you see the rendering here?
http://zodevdesign.deviantart.com/art/Echo-Harbour-110806902
Do you know if the three buildings pictured in the background are the tall (141 ft.) ones they are referring to? It doesn’t look quite like 14 stories tall, but I guess it could be.
Ideally, it would be nice to keep the buildings as short as possible, but I think this is a great opportunity we shouldn’t miss out on.
Rendering mention above:
No, again it seems in this rendering that the western most, 141 foot end, is not present. I just returned from a walking tour of the Rockett’s Landing area and one of the most obvious things one sees from ground level down there is that there is absolutely nothing built as close to the river as the proposed EH site. All of Rocketts residential building are a good 60 to 80 feet back and the river bank is much steeper at Rockett’s. The EH site is very close to river level and flat, explaining why it is a floodway. Building there is akin to letting someone build on the surf of the beach. As far as good planning not protecting the surrounding neighborhood that is actually one of its main purposes, the compromise that the Planning commission came up with took into consideration the neighboring buildings and their heights ie; Rockett’s View, and Tobacco Row, to keep EH in line with them which is also what the step down provision exists to do as well. The city should not be in the business of ruining the value of current property holders homes to benefit new project. EH says they can’t make money at the proposed compromise heights well then maybe after 3 years of compromising its game over. It’s not like this is the only place for development in the City after all, downtown is full of empty spaces available for infill development. They bought a piece of property that they need at a minimum the following to develop
1. permission to move the combined sewage overflow pipe that runs under the property, there is an easement on the property that the city does not have to allow to be breached. 2. a zoning change from industrial to residential, 3. a height restriction waiver of over 100 feet. 4. and of course all the restrictions of building in a floodway. A very risky proposition and maybe just not a do-able one.
Heather there you go again bringing logic into this issue.Developers see dollars signs and little else.
I wish the developers were brave enough to present an accurate full panorama view of the entire project. I, for one, don’t visit Libby Park equipped with a ladder, and gaze only 45 degrees to the left, and neither did those who named Richmond for the panoramic view… The great and beautiful cities of this country (where people return again and again with their tourist dollars!) capitalize on their beauty in far smarter ways than this.
I think we should do what the rich people on the hill say. We shouldn’t obstruct their views.
Well the Rich people won’t buy the Condos so let them have their view instead of an empty building because these yahoos always insist on doing High End Condos though the Market is beyond flooded with them.
well this is a beautiful project and I will support it.
Funny everyone falls in love with photos and drawing but considering it is not zoned for that you may want to find something else to support Alicia
dan
I don’t consider myself rich, and I don’t live ON Libbie Park. While this doesn’t affect any view from my home, it will affect the view from the park, which is for EVERYONE to enjoy, not just the “rich” folk on the hill.
Thank you g for #56. I have friends who live on the park, and when I’ve been at their house I’ve noticed that there are tour buses that stop at the monument for the view. My friends confirm that this is a daily occurence. Those busloads of people are there for one thing – the view.
ShockoeBottomDweller #55, keep it up, I completely agree with you.
I’m sorry, but I just don’t understand the opposition to this project.
The zoning argument is a tad bit ridiculous. To change this area to a park, a zoning change would be required. Why would that change be reasonable?
As far as the view goes you can look at it this way: it will change, not destroyed.