Another design for Mosby Street

WOW… indeed a quick turn around.

Any possibility of building on top of the old KFC to keep the height consistent and add more living space? Looks like you sacrificed some units for this design.

I like the step backs on each building you created and the stepped back parking on the side.

so why is CAR a necessity when developers and the neighborhood already seem to have ongoing dialogues?the argumement that more bureaucracy is needed to thwart some vague conspiracy to turn unionhill into midlothian turnpike looks a liitle foolish when you see how most of these prospective builders bend over backwards to involve community input.guess what?fear mongering is going out of style as is unnecessary regulation.who needs you? buddycorbett

This may or may not be the final rendering but the positive changes show what is possible when an engaged neighborhood works with a community conscious developer to find solutions.

Agreed Matt. Postive indeed.

Buddy, CAR is a necessary piece of the O&H districts of Richmond. We need CAR like a road needs stop signs. Not all of those who are or will be investing in our neighborhoods may be as concienceous.

Give credit where credit is due, that was a quick turnaround. A decent job by Cornerstone.

Greetings All,
We are glad that we are able to satisfy some if not most of the comments with the re-design of this project. To answer some questions, yes the project has been scaled down due to the fact that we moved the front yard parking and staggered it to the side yard going rearward. As for the existing building, we have determined that the building is sound and well built and in this eco-friendly world we now live in why not keep it and give it a much needed facelift. We changed the mansard design to give it more height by raising the existing wall a bit and put on a faux gable roof line, again keeping the design more traditional. With keeping the existing building we do lose some housing units but we considered that it would give the center unit no windows on either side for one, also the existing building is not structurally capable of sustaining two addittional floors and the view from Venable up Mosby we felt is more appealing in tiers then a box.
Thank you for your comments and suggestions.

Hey, are the residential units in this proposal some kind of “section 8” or public housing type dealio?

Dennis #14, I do appreciate your communications with the citizens on this blog, but I think you sort of sidestepped the question posed in #13.

I personally do not have a problem with the Section 8 program; the problem I see with it is that the landlords see it as guaranteed rent from the feds and don’t keep their properties up to code. Plus the folks responsible for overseeing it, RRHA, don’t inspect the properties, and the people who get the vouchers are afraid to report code violations. Lastly, I’m afraid the public in general tends to see Section 8 as drug dealer and/or drug using tenants, too. That last may be perception, it may be reality, and it’s probably a little bit of both.

I’m throwing this comment out in the interest of having what is hopefully a civil debate about it. Bullwinkle has commented on this blog thoughtfully before and I think he must have some reason to ask his question in #13.

#2,

Echo is a completely different deal and located a good distance away from any other real development. In Echo’s case, opponents have stated they don’t want anything built on that site. How is that a “compromise”?

#16, I said that I think the public perception is of that. I have no problem with Section 8, and am glad your family member has had such good tenants. My point was that I thought post #14 by Dennis didn’t totally answer Bullwinkle’s question in #13.

Greetings to all,
To clarify my answer in #14, I said that we would like to make it affordable housing for the community whether it was for rent or sale. We do not and will not discriminate as to who resides in these units but you can rest assured that we will not allow any tennant to occupy and disrespect, devalue or conduct any business not suitable to our standards. We are investing a good sum of money in the community and our intentions are not to sell this property off but to keep it for a long time. I myself am reaching retirement age and quite possibly may live there.

Dennis,

The fact that you want to live there is encouraging. Anyone who reads this blog regularly knows that my tendency is to encourage growth and development in Church / Union Hill – esp. when it is in keeping with the historic character of the neighborhoods and will promote the kind of cosmopolitan bustle that makes similar historic areas in other cities so appealing.

However, I think it’s hard to argue that housing projects / section 8 structures are winners for the city or the surrounding neighborhoods. They directly drain public funds by using up taxpayer monies that might otherwise have been dedicated to, for example, putting more teachers in classrooms; police on the streets; improving streets, sidewalks, parks, museums, and libraries; or encouraging businesses to relocate to Richmond.

Furthermore, subsidized housing indirectly reduces public resources by pulling down home values in surrounding neighborhoods, thereby eroding the tax base.

With all due respect to the many decent folks who live in subsidized housing, study after study shows that these areas tend to breed crime, drug use / dealing, prostitution, etc. They certainly don’t do much to encourage people to live, work, and play in them or in adjacent neighborhoods.

Again, I don’t want to discourage you from proceeding with your project. Your willingness to engage in this kind of public discourse is, in and of itself, admirable. I realize that the opinions I’m expressing here will probably not be popular with the warmer-fuzzier crowd, but Union Hill and Church Hill are historic treasures and development within them should be sensitive to these issues for the greater, long-term good of the whole city.