RECENT COMMENTS
Fairmount says NO to new cornerstore
Thirty or so residents turned out yesterday to the East End Library for a public meeting on the future of the storefront at 22nd Street and Fairmount Avenue. The owner is considering allowing a new cornerstore to open at the location; the community is adamantly opposed to this.
The now-vacant store was the location of several fatal shootings in the early 1990s as the Fairmount Grocery Store and Kim’s Market. The violence spread into the blocks and alleys around the store on Fairmount Avenue and 22nd Street. It has only been very recently that violence in the area has dropped, though prostitution still lingers.
The neighbors at the meeting were 100% opposed to reopening a convenience store at this location, saying that “a convenience store just isn’t what we want” and that “we definitely have a surplus of convenience stores”. There is a market 1/2 block north of this location on 22nd Street and another four blocks down Fairmount Avenue. There are 10 active cornerstores within a 1/2 mile or so of the location, and two more that have recently closed (see map below.)
Complaints against a potential cornerstore include the traffic and noise from delivery trucks, trash (which attracts people, dogs, rodent, snakes), foot traffic, drug traffic, loitering, and panhandlers that will be attracted to the store. The general feeling is that a cornerstore at this location will give people an excuse to loiter and will attract illicit activities.
The neighbors would much prefer a business that does not provide an excuse for loitering, and has shorter hours and less foot-traffic. Suggested businesses with support from those present include: any type of retail; a beauty salon and/or barber shop; a coffee shop; a cleaners; apartments; an office; an ice-cream shop; or a donut shop.
Mr.Joyner, the owner of the building, already has potential tenants interested in opening a convenience store. A committee was formed from the residents present today to work towards convincing Mr.Joyner to hold off on this move, and to help identify other potential tenants for the building.
Previously:
- @22nd and Fairmount (10/7/2006)
- What would be good in this storefront? (1/11/2010)
We welcome further input from the community. If you have ideas of what could work, or, more importantly, connections that could make it happen, let us know.
I would have to agree with the residents of Fairmount. There should be something different there.
If the owner does not need a SUP then he has the right to do with his property whatever he wishes. Do we not live in a free country that allows for individual (or property) rights anymore?
Of course the owner has the right to do whatever is legal with his property.
The hope is that he will take into account the desires of the community and work to place a something in the building that will contribute positively to the area.
If it turns out that it has to be a corner store, perhaps the owner would agree to not sell singles, not sell 40s, not sell malt liquor or fortified wine, not sell 22s, task an employee with picking up trash within a certain radius, and provide specific kinds of groceries that the neighbors can request, and include some sort of outlet for the food co-op market. Oh, and NOT display cardboard cigarette advertisments.
I am also adamantly opposed to such a use of the building. There is a store on N 22nd already and that is more than enough. This type of store always attracts and promotes the ability to loiter, just look at the store on the corner of Fairmount and Mechanicsville. And also, there is the open air drug market that exists on N 22nd that would be further promoted by such a store.
I would hope that the owner would find another use for this building. This neighborhood has more than enough prostitutes, drug dealers, and illegal activities. I am sure there can be a much more positive use for this building than what is being suggested.
It looks like the original use of the property was residential up, retail down. If you do something else with the property, aren’t you running the risk of “False historicism?”
@7. are you serious? or just poking fun at some previous discussion threads on this site? If it’s the later, it doesn’t apply here. If its the former, then we need to talk.
Fortunately, USES of a historic building (and this one is in the Fairmount National and State Historic District) aren’t considered to have any bearing on the architectural appearance of a building, should the owner want to undertake a restoration that might qualify for Fed or State Historic Rehabilitation Tax Credits.
Arguments about “historicism” or “false historicism” typically apply to the way a building looks, not how it is used.
So you know what is annoying? Since this picture was taken, which was likely around 1/24, someone has tagged the front and the side of the building.
I noticed it about a week ago, and checked back at this picture to confirm that it’s new.