RECENT COMMENTS
Development will bring almost 500 new apartments to Shockoe Valley
Three big projects under way along 21st Street and Broad Street will bring almost 500 apartments and more than 13,000 square feet of retail space to the area where Church Hill and Shockoe meet.
Five years ago, a rotted shell of a house sat on the block-long vacant lot at 21st and Broad and, a block south, work was just beginning on converting the American Tobacco building into more than 150 apartments. Following the success of American Tobacco, the Dill Building was rebuilt and reborn, bringing more apartments to 21st Street. Now projects at the Broad and Main intersections along 21st Street will make for a contiguous environment connecting Church Hill and Tobacco Row.
2001 East Broad
The fence recently went up at the construction site for this 74-unit mixed-use development at 21st and Broad Streets. Slated to be four floors of apartments above a ground floor that would includes a lobby and commercial space, with below-ground parking.
Cedar and Broad
The construction underway at the foot of Jefferson Park is the 204-unit Cedar Broad Apartments. The 4-story building will have covered parking spaces and 8,448 square feet of retail space.
Shockoe Valley Heights
Shockoe Valley Heights will transform the block bound by Main, 21st, Franklin, and 20th Streets and is being built in four phases. The first building, Bobber Flats, at 20th and Franklin was ready for occupancy in late 2009 (41-units). The 2nd phase, Engine Company Lofts, will see the 1899 firestation at 21st and Main (vacant for over 40 years) become a restaurant space with 3 or 4 loft-style apartments above. Also in this piece of the development, the building at the corner of 21st and Main will top out at 5 stories will and house 25 apartments and 2,000 square feet of commercial space. The 3rd phase, Old Stone Row (96 units), will be built on the former site of the Secrets of the City nightclub. The fourth phase, Trolley Commons, is planned for early 2011 and will be new construction along Main Street. These buildings will feature 80 residential units, an outdoor pool, 158 parking spaces and 3,000 square feet of retail.
See also:
- Shockoe Bottom firehouse part of block-wide plan (12/08 Richmond BizSense)
- Bobber Flats nears completion (11/09 Richmond BizSense)
So awesome! They all look great!
Nice pics, thanx.
Geezzz.. just hat we need. More addition to the glut of apartments that can’t be filled in the first place. Has the Nolde’s Building ever been filled to capacity? It started out as high-end condos and then lease apartments but the vacancy sign still stands years later. What makes anyone think these advertised “luxury living” apartments will fill up?
Keep in mind that the wave of warehouse conversions and apartment building boon was during the time when Amtrak was advertising Main Street Station to be the main train depot for Richmond starting with 9 passenger trains leaving each day. That the high speed Maglev train was also going to run between Richmond and DC with a 45-minute commute making lower cost Richmond more appealing for those commuting between the two. Neither happened.
Hell, we can’t even get decent highways in Richmond. Drivers tears up their automobile tires, rims, and front end alignments just driving within a 1-mile stretch let alone miles of swiss cheese Richmond highways. The city rather spend money on replacing street lights not needed or fixing up that crappy City Hall high-rise building – throwing good money after bad “fixing” it up. I think we must have the worst roads in the United States! Poor sense of priorities but I digress concerning the apartment glut.
What is this with Trolley Commons? Not another Frankenstein building like that across from CVS on 25th Street? 20th and 21st century styling in a 19th century area of buildings just doesn’t fit.
I wish they hadn’t built those weird-looking buttress things out from the bay doors on the old engine house, but on the whole the projects look good.
I have mixed feelings about all this development myself; #1 Broad Street already backs up miserably to the 95 entrance. I would like to know what types of road improvements the developers agreed to to accomodate all the extra cars. The city didn’t really just let them build that with no forethought…did they? Anyone know how to find that out?
#2, it’s not so much the juxtaposition of modern architecture with the old that I don’t like; in fact I’m just glad someone retained the old firehouse at all. They could have easily torn it down. I just find the newer styles to be kind of generic, and uninspired. Ho Hum.
Still it’s better than what was there before, and if they can actually get them occupied it will spur retail in the bottom, which is what we need.
While Steven didn’t say it very tactfully, he makes a valid point: that’s a lot of space to fill. I will try to be optimistic but it does smell a bit like magic beans.
The development is much needed, should be applauded, and looks great. People like “Steven” are exactly the problem with Richmond. NEVER a good word to say about anything. Makes me wonder how they make it through life always being so negative. Congrats go to Sensi Development and the others who RISK their money by developing land in the bottom! Thanks!
I am not aginst more density if done well.
We are going to need more rail/mass transit. Will these developers contribute to that cause? If done right, it could make their property even more valuable.
This is also an issue around all the new density on W. Cary St.
One can only hope these developments will be positive influences on the surrounding area.
@ #8 – These developers are already contributing to rail/mass transit by default by increasing the population density in the area. Higher population densities are one of the key factors/ingredients for making rail/transit viable options.
In response to #5, the old firehouse originally had the buttress type walls extending from the sides of the bay doors along with a balcony above them. I will try and track down some old photos and send them in, but they are “historically correct”.
John, thanks for posting this information – its great to keep up with what’s being built. Any idea if there’s a picture of the “shell of a house” that you mention that was on the Broad and 21st block? I must have moved here after it was torn down…
I agree… more housing and not enough parking. the glut of housing & perception of a croded Shockoe Bottom wont help things.
The use of the firehouse is controversial IMO. It is nice to see it used after 40 years , but this is going to be a failed development.
Thanks to Fireman for this photo:
Not enough parking? Are you guys crazy? There is an abundance of free parking in this area, and it causes everyone to have at least one, if not multiple cars.
So this is going to be a failed development, Robin? How do you know that? Or are you just spouting off without any evidence to support your assertion?
In order for this area to become a walkable, transit-friendly, urban core, the change the likes of which we are seeing in other cities, and give some vitality to this area, you are going to have to lose your obsession with free and abundant land for the storage of your private property.
I would like to be able to cross main street, via a crosswalk, without having to worry about getting hit by a speeding car. I would like to see more than 1 or 2 people on the sidewalk when I take a walk down to the bottom.
I don’t own a car, and I don’t really feel like subsidizing the cost of the real estate used to store your car. You want parking? Pay for it. And stop complaining about parking availability in a place where I have never seen all street spaces used. I’d love to see some of you try living in a real city, where livable streets are a priority. You’d probably have a stroke with the lack of free spaces.
I am with Luke…
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2010/06/leed-or-not-parking-garages.php
Hooray for the continued development and investment in the East Side, especially given this poor economic climate! WIth banks having tightened their lending, be assured investors AND the banks have scruntized numbers and statistics to make sure there exists a reasonable ROI over time. Eventually, my hope and vision is this will generate more retail (ie another grocery store, pleeeeeeeeease…)investment in the area.
Luke is right. Do people think the streets were designed for abandoned warehouses only or something? The streets in this area used to accomodate HUGE volumes of daily commercial traffic.
The traditional street grid is perhaps the best traffic diffuser available.
Also, there are between 2,000 and 5,000 offstreet parking spaces available in shockoe bottom.
Please note that I am all for increased city revenue and utilizing old buildings IF and that is a BIG “IF”, they don’t destroy the original fabric. The firehouse usage is good and putting it back to original blueprint but the additional modernized attachments is not. Designing a building that “blends in” with the existing 19th century ones would be the way to go. Not some prefab generic looking building with modern faux industrial awnings, etc… Otherwise just tear it all down and build a chrome and glass monstrosity there. Aren’t there “purists” around in the architectural field any longer when it comes to historic areas?
Fireman, thanks so much for the photo of the original firehouse, and John for posting it! I, too, was wondering why they had added those buttress type walls.
My problem with all of this is the height of the additional buildings, I think they are two stories too tall, and that includes all three projects. The nearby buildings are not that tall, and I think the addition on Main St., and the new stuff on Broad, is dwarfing the other original buildings.
@Bryan – Here is the only photo that I can find of that house. This photo is taken from Jefferson Park, looking over the garage and what is now Central Montessori (from ~2005).
#14…what a marvelous old picture!
one of the things that seperates church hill from other places is the fact that so much of it is low-key, residental, and a mix of people. between grace and nine mile, between 38th and 20th there is a wonderful city neighborhood.
the looming “development” will fit in like pieces of crap on a xmas tree. there is a difference between renovation/restoration and cheaply made concrete/steel that resembles short pump or fairfax. old HOMES being fixed up will CONTINUE to give church hill character and class. monolythic, impersonal, overpriced apartments will contribue to church hill being transformed into an overpriced and impersonal place.
it’s a fine line to walk – longtime residents want to see the neighborhood advance forward, but most aren’t too crazy about the equivalent of a best western and a holiday inn being built within it.
“people” like christo who blindly support the facelessness that is infecting richmond are the problem. realistic negativity can be the voice of reason. thank you, Steven, for caring enough about the neighborhood to make it known.
yes – like it or not – multimillionares are planning on constructing the ritziest condos they can for the cheapest amount possible. that’s how rich people get richer. thankfully, the majority of church hill has character and history that won’t be cemented over.
retail spaces at the bottom of the coming condos? do we need starbucks, panera bread and a verizon store so close? because that (or the equivalent) is what will be placed there… then the christos can walk there instead of driving their suvs to henrico.
if that is considered progress, i for one clamor for regression…
John, thanks for digging up and posting the picture of the house (or double-house, as it looks from the photo). I’ve only known that block of Broad as an empty block. It’ll be interesting to see how the “feel” of the street changes with the new buildings.
Is the propriety people in Church Hill feel over the Bottom justified, and should Church Hill impose its style of development on the Bottom?
The Bottom is a different place. It is not built to be the sleepy shaded backwater some people envision for Church Hill and the fact of the matter is that the burdens of regulation prohibit any form of development other than large-scale development.
Density in the Bottom is good for greater Church Hill for at least several reasons:
1) Density will provide people to patronize the mythical mom and pop stores people want on corners up here, and create a market for goods and services most of us want, like a modern urban grocery store. Density = vitality.
2) Drawing the rental market to the Bottom will actually encourage the growth of conversion of multi-family duplexes into single family homes in Church Hill because rental duplexes and quads in the Hill will not be able to compete with the apartments, at least for the student market. As the real estate market stabilizes (in a few years) you will see this happen. It has happened all over other urban parts of the City. Are single fmaily homes too much facelessness, though (just asking)?
3) Following on 2, if the growth in the Bottom draws multi-family renters out of Church Hill and into the Bottom, then their cars go with them and parking is actually aleviated in Church Hill.
4) Larger scale development benfits from the economies of scale. Notwithstanding the supposed greed of developers, a lot of the comments here are about design and taste. But whatever the shapes of eaves and windows, you will not get sturdy brick buildings with slate and copper character without enough units to justify the expense.
Worth considering since we all apparently consider ourselves planning experts.
@bulldogbat
I agree one of the best features in the hills is the mix of people and it is nice to see the restoration of old homes, but I find your argument somewhat confusing.
You seem to imply from your last paragraph that the burbs (Henrico) represents some sort of cookie cutter lifestyle, an overpriced, impersonal place (which I agree with), yet you argue against architectural diversity (modern infill) within the hills in order to preserve the character and history of the neighborhood.
Over the past 150 years people/companies have been infilling the area, some with greater success/quality than others. This area has all the charm of that history and diversity, yet so many people are against promoting that same history and diversity moving forward.
I understand it is a fine line to walk when it comes to personal preference/taste, but I believe the more modern infill will add more charm and more historical significance moving forward.
I feel that by focusing on architectural standards/guidelines (what I believe you term regression), we are creating the same type of cookie cutter atmosphere I think we all appreciate being without. Just because there is a Starbucks, Panera Bread, or Verizon store down the street doesn’t mean our neighborhood suddenly lacks character or history. Old homes being fixed up will continue to provide the hills with character and class, but it is not the only contributor of character and class to the fabric of our neighborhood.
All this development will bring new people into Church Hill and Shockoe Bottom, but what about the infrastructure..can it handle all the new flushing toilets and water from dishwashers, showers/baths and lawn watering. Our residents have already been saddled with the stormwater drainage asessments, are we to expect more assessments in the future because our mayor wants to spend money on construction??? Where is the money coming from anyway?? We have all forgotten that we the people are the force behind our governments, local, state and national. Why have we given up our rights??? We are being taxed to death by our governments who work with real estate develors, contractors, realtors who take our money or don’t pay their share taxes and we the people pay the taxes for them. When is it going to end???
The architectural review guidelines for the Old and Historic Districts including the large portions of the St. Johns Historic Distric (Church Hill) and the Shockoe Valley Historic District specifically state that a new structure must avoid creating a false sense of historicism. The rules specifically preclude building new that which appears old.
Carolyn… the industries that were down in the Bottom once used huge amounts of water. Keep in mind a major ice works and commercial cooling facility were down here, too. And a commercial bathouse, not mention all sorts of produce washing at the truck farm warehouses. Houses, people and heavy industry used to be in all the empty lots. The streets were desined to be wide enough for street cars and huge commercial vehicles of the past. They can handle a few hundred extra Priuses and Smart Cars. The infrastructure was designed for dense heavy use, although the combined-sewer outflow should by un-combined at some point.
If you stop infill where it is supposed to go – in cities – you will only create more suburban nightmare sprawl.
Also, most of the recent projects in the Bottom have been developer-managed, so there is no taking the money and running.
hey NK
lol. i was using the terms “progress” & “regression” sarcastically in my last paragraph. i just want the neighborhood to remain personal, eclectic, historic and beautiful.
i completely agree with you that there is a mix of styles/infill that comprises church hill. that mix of stone buildings, brick, cinder block and wood spread out over the past century and a half is a beautiful mix. the fact we have a neighborhood of cyclists, bus riders, pedestrians, mopeds and cars make it a beautiful mix. the fact we have retirees, young couples, students, families, etc. of different race and background make it a beautiful mix.
giant hulking condo buildings, underground garages, strip mall stores and the like will uglify things in my opinion. of course i want progress. we all do. i suppose i want slower moving sustainable progress – privately owned businesses and folks who want to live in houses and know their neighbors!
500 shiny apartments, shiny happy people in droves, shiny new suvs, shiny discarded coffee cups, shiny cigarette butts, shiny congestion onto the freeway and shiny shiny shiny… well, i’m NOT for that. leave all the shiny elsewhere.
where else can you look down at a historic city from atop a huge hill, buy fresh veggies from a bus, walk your dog to the vet, mail a letter, grab a buzzy’s coffee/alamo BBQ, and be greeted by your neighbors as you walk by?
the last thing i want to look at is a 13000 square foot monstrosity next to a mcdonald’s that has a chipolte, foot locker and whatever else makes money for people that have more than they need.
# 23 – “retail spaces at the bottom of the coming condos? do we need starbucks, panera bread and a verizon store so close? because that (or the equivalent) is what will be placed there… then the christos can walk there instead of driving their suvs to henrico….if that is considered progress, i for one clamor for regression…”
Well, sorry, but in my opinion, I would definitely consider that progress. Consider the benefit the first floor retail will have on the increased walk-ability of the neighborhood, thereby further reducing our need to drive our cars everywhere. Then also consider how you won’t be putting as much of your money into the pockets of oil companies such as BP, who are doing a damn fine job of ruining the Gulf at the moment….
bulldogbat –
I agree with you that homogenized, low-quality construction has a deleterious effect on the aesthetics of an area like Church Hill. The thing is that we are not talking about Church Hill. We are talking about the bottom, and we are talking about construction in places where buildings don’t exist. We are not talking about tearing down historic structures.
Right now the bottom is a hodgepodge of old warehouses and factories, some renovated, and some not, a few old rowhouses and a few old commercial/retail buildings. The rest of it is surface parking lots. Much of the construction is replacing those ugly, deteriorating surface lots. How can that be bad?
The problem of the quality of construction is something that has to be addressed independently. You can be in support of high-density construction in an area like the bottom but not support the corners that are cut these days and the bland, suburban aesthetics that seem to prevail. Given the cost of materials, and the disappearance of skilled artisans from the construction business, I’m not sure how you fix that problem.
Also, do you oppose the concept of mixed-use space, with housing and retail colocated in the same buildings? It is this sort of development that reduces need for automobile transportation, and subsequently road construction and maintenance. It is this type of development that fosters the sort of community that you wish to have. Now, if those new buildings are populated by starbucks and panera, that is a separate issue, but I see no reason why commercial space in these buildings could not be populated by the same types of independent stores and restaurants that already exist in parts of the bottom and inhabit other parts of the city.
#27. Did I miss sopmething here? Where is there public money in this development? There is much about the Jones Administration I don’t support, but I have seen nothing to indicate he is putting any public money into this project at all.
luke,
if the retail establishments turn out to be independent and not stripmall chains, i’d be suprised and delighted. i would love to walk or bike to another (nearby) neighborhood establishment.
you’re right, we are talking about the edge of church hill and the bottom and not union hill, chimborazo, 25th street, etc – THANK GOD. but do WE need a few thousand more people clogging into the edge of the hill? part of the beauty of church hill is that it’s a secret – do we have to be so suddenly overcrowded that one has to wait an hour for a table at the hill cafe?
magneto, you may get your wish and be able to walk to a starbucks soon. as for me, i’ll still head to globetrotter.
@bulldogbat,
It seems you want to have your cake and eat it too. Church Hill and the Bottom are becoming more popular places to live. The higher densities in the Bottom will bring more customers for retail and restaurants. Perhaps the wait at the Hill Cafe will increase, or better yet, perhaps more restaurants will be able to survive with more customers around to patronize them. And as you said, if a Starbucks does come, magneto can go there, and you can go to globetrotter. With many more people around, there will be enough business to go around (fyi, little known fact of the coffee biz, a local Starbucks actually tends to increase business for local mom and pop coffee shops, see http://www.slate.com/id/2180301/).
Why do you assume that the people who live in the apartments and condos will all be driving their “shiny SUVs?” People who want to drive their “shiny SUVs will continue to live in Short Pump. People who want to live in a vibrant urban place where they can walk and bike will most likely be the ones who come to Shockoe Bottom in the new developments.
Juliellen,
we’ll just have to wait and see what it brings.
Fred,
bulldogbat isn’t the only one who is content with things as they are. i’ll take a slice of the same cake. not to nitpick, but i could care less about slate’s starbuckian slant…
i am outraged that the development at 19th and marshall will block the historic jefferson park viewshed of the mcdonald’s parking lot. where is the cha when we need them?? did they approve this??
as carolyn put it eloquently in #27, freedom dies a little bit every time private developers convert a dirty, needle-filled parking lot into a tax revenue-generating building for people to live and work. this sort of private enterprise is totally unamerican!
38. you took the words from my mouth
Let me address several points made.
First, I am not complaining so much the design of the Cedar Broad Apartments. In fact, they seem to fit quite nicely in that area. What I am complaining about is the fact that there is already a glut of apartments and/or condos that haven’t been leased so why build more to add to the problem? On the other hand I do have issue with the Shockoe Valley Heights (firehouse) design which is out of place and is a cop-out. And who came up with that bullshit “false historicism” clause? Who will buy a building without knowing its history anyway?
What is the reasoning behind building these condos – apartments? To bring people downtown to live. A downtown that no longer exists? Major department store and business office building demolished to create a surface parking lot you have to “pay” to shop? Do you think the buildings will mysteriously reappear or be rebuilt if the crowds come to downtown to live?
For those who think Shockoe isn’t worth “saving” keep in mind what the historical plaque located at Dock and South 15th Street says: “We laid the foundation of two large cities, one at Shacco’s, to be called Richmond.” William Byrd II, 1733″ Shockoe is Richmond’s oldest neighborhood. In the late 17th century, tobacco, furs, rum, and enslaved Africans were traded within blocks of here. In 1742, the town was no more than a fifth of a mile square, with 250 merchants, laborers, fishermen, and boatsmen.
So you are saying that Shockoe isn’t historical enough to preserve?
I am sure part of it is the fact that buildings like the Branch Public Baths across the street (which also has a historical marker) and the Cold Storage Warehouses were built at the turn of the 20th century. What people forget is that older buildings were torn down to make way for these modern buildings. And yes, demolition has been going on for years but heightened public awareness to the fact that our assets are steadily disappearing creates Historic Districts and regulations to preserve them because there has to be a stopping point or within the next hundred years we will loose almost everything else standing built in the 19th century. Lost Richmond heritage.
And yes, those that will rent these luxury apartments will 9 times out of 10 will have some sort of SUV or hybrid and not only one but most likely a family with 2, 3, or more cars. This in itself has created problems with our Church Hill neighborhoods due to converting houses and corner businesses into multi unit housing. A house built in an era where people had no vehicle or at the most, one car which would fit nicely in front of a person’s house. Now if you come home after 6pm you have to circle to find a parking space and risk vandalism or theft of your vehicle since it is out of eyeshot because of multi car families and multi families in a single structure.
@#21 Yes John! I remember now and I looked back at my pics and I kind of have the same angle in 2004.
mucks.. that is just beyond stupid. This building adds to the viewshed, not block it like Echo Harbour would to Libby Hill’s which is epically panoramic and is comparative to an urban mountain top.
@Cadeho- I believe mucks comments were sarcastic.
@40- Where do you get the idea there is a glut of apartments? Or these will be luxury apartments? What category of clients do luxury even target?
I have a very hard time believing any financing would be available in a market as tight as this without substantive evidence they could be absorbed into the market. Before Trani retired he is quoted as saying with the growth of MCV the area could use 2500 additional housing units. The target of most developments such as these in the area are targeting that student/young professional/empty nester. Only one of those could be considered a luxury apartment client.
What is the purpose of these apartments? If you have to ask, why do YOU live here? I moved to the area when I got to Richmond because I wanted to be close to work. Close to nightlife. Close to the heart of the city. If I wanted to be close to a department store, I’d live at West Broad Village or Stony Point.
Parking is not even an issue in Richmond compared to other great urban cities.
There is a lot of energy in this tread. It’s great to hear such a lively discussion about New Urbanism.
Now, can we bring some of this energy and focus up the road to East End Transformation Charrettes?
Please consider stopping by the Family Resource Center today between 6-8pm or on Saturday between 11am and 1pm (you don’t have to be there the whole time) and share your ideas about what you’d like to see in the 25th Street and Nine Mile Road corridor.
The planners want to hear from you.
Excellent points, Ry, in # 43.
Also just a clarification to posts 31, 34 and 35 – I’m happy with just about any retail establishment at the bottom of these apartments. My point wasn’t so much about the potential chains arriving but more so about the mixture of uses. First floor retail, in general, is an excellent idea and, in my opinion, will be an asset to this community. We will finally be able to have more of these destinations within walking distance thereby reducing the number of automobile trips in the neighborhood and creating a more active pedestrian environment. Whether or not the retail space tenants are “Mom and Pops” or “Starbucks” is completely up to the market. As a side note, I frequent Globehopper and many other non-Starbucks establishments way more than the chains.
Ry, I’ll touche’ that.
Ry… where did I get the information that hese will be luxury apartments? Look at the developers sign on the fence along Broad Street… it says that there.
As for glut, what about the tobacco row warehouses, Noldes, the warehouses across from Exxon, the cold storage warehouses, etc… are all of them 100% filled justifying the need for more? The answer to both is NO.
These developments are exactly what The Bottom needs. I am astounded by the negativity, ranging from: there are too many apartments now, I don’t like the building design, can the infrastructure handle it, it’s too tall, etc. People act like this isn’t a city. There is a major street grid, which can more than accommodate it–We don’t know what traffic is in Richmond. Would you rather these lots sit abandoned/vacant? What do you think ultimately leads to more crime per capita, a vacant lot or an apartment complex full of people who bring life to an area?
Downtown apartment vacancy rates are low. The areas of the region with higher apartment vacancy rates are the older suburban apartments.
Students at VCU’s MCV Campus are very excited by anything occurring along Broad St. I know several who live in the Jackson Ward area, and they always comment how finding housing close by is getting better. These apartments only add to the experience.
As for building design, why are we so scared of something modern going up in this city? There is nothing historic about any of these locations. Church Hill’s district starts later, and Main St was largely Industrial (what’s left is anyway). I like how we’re finally seeing varying styles of architecture around town. If only we’d get a tall building (30+ stories) to break us out of our boring box-style high-rise filled skyline.
I sense a lot of NIMBY-ism for anything related to development in The Bottom, and I don’t get it. Vitality in the area, which these apartments will help deliver, will only increase property values, reduce crime per capita, and make the area look better (it can’t look any more dingy). I’m tired of seeing vacant land right next to downtown.
Robinson Street.
The problem is that YOU don’t get it. Sure, progress is fine but when you rip and destroy historical values to accomplish it, that creates a different problem. Older houses and building were torn down to create those parking and abandoned lots you speak of. A developer could go to the museums and do research as to what was there and the neighborhood prior to the crappy hodge-podge styles came to be and design something more complementary to the area that represents 19th century architecture AND still accomplish having apartments, businesses, etc.
True, we need to modernize a certain area of downtown with high rises but lets face it, it will NEVER happen. We were promised when the historic building at 8th and Broad was torn down that it would not fall into the same category as Thalhimers and remain empty but a new chrome and glass building was being “immediately” built there. That promise was broken and we still have less than what we started out with – with many of the blocks along Broad still undeveloped after demolition. Parts of Broad in itself is turning into a college campus full of fake prefab buildings or parking decks and that sickens my stomach.
Though Shockoe is the oldest part of Richmond, you don’t think that historical preservation or even new infill that mimics historic architecture is justified even if it accomplishes the same end result? That is what I am getting at (other than the glut issue).
@Steven- Maybe they are luxury, but I don’t know of any apartments that market themselves as ‘the same thing as that mid-market complex down the street’. I think the rents they ask are more of an indicator – which I haven’t seen. Regardless, I reject the notion that even luxury apartments are bad. We could use some higher incomes and additional purchasing power in the area.
I lived in one of the Tobacco warehouses. They tend to stay rather full. Lots of turnover, so there will always be units empty for a month here and there. But they also have a good mix of YP, grad students, corp housing, and empty nesters. Except for Lucky Strike , I’d qualify those as middle of the road, in price, apartments.
I think your anger on these projects is misplaced. I agree that Richmond should continue to preserve and leverage the historic structures. However, nothing I’ve seen of historic value was torn down by these developers. By prior owners, possibly. Federal Historic Tax Credits, a tool for building preservation and adaptive reuse into commercial/apartments, are used more in Richmond than anywhere else in Virginia. Virginia is ranked second in the country in utilization. I’d say we’re doing a pretty good job taking our old buildings and putting them back to work.
No, we’re probably not going to have department or big box stores downtown. But by creating density, you drive better public transit, more purchasing power for both local and chain businesses (which can be locally owned), and a stronger tax base for the city.
I may be going on a tangent here but another way to look at this… we have gone way too long with the lack of values with the “tear down the old to make way for the new” mentality.
I bet that most if not all of those who complain about the people who strive to maintain our historic structures or eye appeal on various blocks, don’t even own a single piece of real antique furniture? That they don’t sit down at a dinner table nightly and eat off of real dinnerware but rather sit in a great room eating out of their lap watching television? (by the way, we do eat off of Wedgewood china and drink out of Waterford crystal as our everyday dinnerware)
It is a matter if morals, a matter of principals, a matter of pride, and a matter of respecting the past and future of our neighborhoods in a historic city.
If people continue down the “I don’t care one way or another” path but only think about having a place close by to have a good time or a store they don’t have to get dressed and drive to, then it won’t be long before our historic structures will disappear from the map and new cheaply made, quickly designed prefab buildings that has a bashing of unrelated designs replace them.
Why should Richmond be any less than places like Charleston, SC that take pride in their historic districts and have strict rules and regulations to keep them that way? Richmond is much older and has way more history to just chuck it to the curb.
Steven:
Let’s be pragmatic. For the bottom, in those areas that have already seen destruction of any early historic structures, you have two options: build something new or leave abandoned lots.
If building something new is the choice, then you have the issue of what quality and style of construction is placed there. Unfortunately, current market forces controlling the prices of materials and labor make it cost-ineffective to build something to the quality and architectural detail of old. The choice to construct in the modernist style that you despise is not driven primarily by choice, but by fiscal necessity.
If you leave the lots abandoned, as other posters have pointed out, you do nothing but cultivate crime, keep density low, which results in lower property values, reduced new businesses, fewer choices (the hill cafe, that’s what you get; with more people, you may get other restaurants), and last but not least, a splintered, ugly area.
Don’t let historic structures get replaced by substandard new construction. I have a friend that complained that “Richmond never likes to build anything new.” What he was advocating was replacing the irreplaceable – that very detailed construction that is astronomically expensive today, and I will never understand that attitude. However, preserving the old is not mutually exclusive with developing new.
And if we want Richmond to offer more to more people, it needs to grow.
Luke, you make a very good argument. But on the other hand, if we have the technology to make prefab sections out of low cost materials, then we should be able to at least dictate the design style they are molded into. Even if carved stone work or ornate brick work is replaced with mold injection composite material… at least from afar it gives the look of old world style construction.
I was also thinking that that even another way to look at our local treasures is like an old car. If you drive lets say a 2000 Buick Century, that in essence is a throw away vehicle to most. When it dies out it goes to the junk yard. But fast forward 40 years and because most all went to scrap, any that remain will be worth a fortune and rare as hens teeth to find fetching premium prices. Just like a 1957 Buick in restored condition does today. It is always the things most thrown out that become the most valuable in the future. Same thing with houses. Tear them down to make way for new but along the way people will want an old house and will any be around to have with today’s mentality? And those left behind will be worth a fortune because of supply and demand. Save them now and build like housing around them to maintain a balance reflective of the 19th century and stop the senseless voluntary destruction of older homes to make way for new. Just because it has been done in the past doesn’t make it right and there has to be a stopping point along the way.
Oh well, now I’m talked out with parallels 🙂
Steven,
First, I think you might be going a little far by implying that the readers of this blog who don’t own antique furniture, eat off of Wedgewood china and drink from Waterford crystal lack morality, pride in their neighborhood and respect for the past. Sounds a little elitist to me…
I think you should give your neighbors some slack here. After all, I’m sure that in the 1860s the homeowners of Church Hill knew the difference between “principal” and “principle,” but John was good enough not to censor your post #51 (see paragraph 3).
The three projects in question are not “tearing down the old to make way for the new.” The old was already torn down. It’s gone. I agree it’s sad, but those are the facts. Would it be great if they reconstructed everything exactly as it was in the 18th/19th century? Maybe, maybe not. I enjoy the period architecture and charm of our neighborhood, but I’m sure that the addition of indoor plumbing has improved the smell immensely. Call it false historicism, but I’ll keep my flush toilets, thank you.
Back to the point – not a single historical structure has been torn down to make way for these properties. Heck, the 21st and Main development has INCLUDED all of the surrounding historical buildings. What you are asking for is unrealistic, like it or not. These developers didn’t tear down the buildings that once stood at these locations – most of responsible parties are probably dead. If these apartments fail because of lack of demand then the developers and their bankers take a hit, not us. Say what you will about a half vacant apartment building, but I’ll still take it over an empty lot.
I fully support these projects, thank the developers for investing in my neighborhood and wish them the best of luck. If you choose to sell your historic furniture, china and crystal to finance a development that exactly duplicates a block as it existed in the 1800s (what have you got against the 1700s, huh?), then I will be equally supportive of you. Until then, might I recommend an annual pass to Colonial Williamsburg?
Steve, I don’t see anyone here advocating for the demolition of historic structures. One of the reasons I love Richmond is the character and charm of our many old buildings, my present home included. However, we can’t reverse history, and I don’t know that we should always try to recreate it, either. Current market demand, building standards, and material costs have all changed immensely. Those factors need to be taken into consideration for new structures. I’m really certain anything from the past in that area would not fit the size and density appropriate for our growing downtown. One of my biggest complaints about VCU’s development around The Fan is everything they build sprawls out, as if land is plentiful. We need to strive for density, because it is sustainable…Above all else, I anxiously await the day we have half the surface parking lots we currently have around town.
Any construction that lessens my chance of seeing pimps and drug dealers in the bottom (like I see when I go down there to eat) is ok by me. I hope this new construction accomplishes the goal of bringing more honest working people to the area.
#51 Steven. Contrary to popular belief, most people in this area are too busy trying to survive and feed their families to give a shit what kind of plates you use to eat your Whopper and Fries. Why don’t you trade that narcissism for some humility.
“Even if carved stone work or ornate brick work is replaced with mold injection composite material… at least from afar it gives the look of old world style construction.”
This is often referred to as Phony-Colony. Preservationists do not like it; preservationists like authenticity. Preservationists would much rather have authentic modern buildings than foam-injected fake Georgians and Colonials. Might as well build Disney World.
The developers at work in Shockoe Bottom seem to be doing a pretty good job of incorporating the remaining historic structures into new and revitalized projects. I don’t see much tearing down going on, although all the vacant land reminds us that many buildings must have been torn down or allowed to rot and fall down in the past.
The development is creating vibrant and diverse places, which will actually help preserve the remaining historic structures because of increased investment and interest in the area.
Not sure what the point is about the Wedgewood. I suspect my ancestors ate off of greasy wooden or pewter plates, with a sharp knife, followed by a swig of mead from a rarely-washed wooden pitcher. Personally, I prefer my authentic Crate and Barrel dishes (and authentic Bosch dishwasher) to faux wooden plates and hunting knives for my dinnerware.
here are just some thought I have about the discussion so far:
Cities evolve over time, I’m not sure I have a problem introducing modern and post modern architecture in old neighborhoods.
the craftsmanship required to replicate the design of old buildings is almost non existent. there are good examples of old architectural style that were replicated in Richmond ie The Turning Basin in Shockoe Slip but most of the time the cheap knock-offs of old building look horrible.
the are no really tall buildings in downtown Richmond because there in no speculative office building downtown. most of the speculative office building in the richmond area happens in the suburbs.
zero percent is not a healthy vacancy rate!!!
why isn’t there much retail in the downtown area–i think it is the housing projects. if the department stores come back to downtown it will be in monroe ward as new superblock developments in that area won’t be controversial.
From #54: “The three projects in question are not “tearing down the old to make way for the new.” The old was already torn down….Back to the point – not a single historical structure has been torn down to make way for these properties….These developers didn’t tear down the buildings that once stood at these locations – most of responsible parties are probably dead. ”
That is incorrect at least in relation to the project on East Broad between 20th and 21st. There was a perfectly viable group of buildings on that block until relatively recently. The owner let the buildings rot – in other words, he created demolition by neglect. Somewhere in a box I have pictures of the houses, but by the time I find them this project will be finished, so please trust me – that was not a vacant lot ten or so years ago.
I am not commenting on the current projects or anything else in #54 with this post, just correcting something that I know is factually incorrect. I, too, do not eat off Wedgewood and drink from Waterford. (Actually I eat off Dansk.)
My personal problem with ALL three of these projects is the HEIGHT issue, not anything else. Yet.
I apologize – I was under the impression that a previous owner had demolished the buildings on that block, my mistake.
#61, previous owner DID demolish but through neglect. Refused to sell, just let the bldgs. sit with no roof, etc.
In that case, I think my point stands. I don’t think it’s fair to hold the companies now developing these lots responsible for the neglect of a previous owner. That is, unless there was some sort of collusion between the previous owner and the current developer to wait until the houses collapsed to sell the land.
59. is any thing planed for monroe ward ?
@64
Right now, there isn’t much going on in Monroe Ward. I know of a student apartment building going up on Canal, but that’s about it.
I remember the eyesores at 21st and Broad. They were beyond salvaging 20 years ago when most people ran across the street to avoid the frequent errant bullet during the crack cocaine wars. The lot was a junkyard for old, rotted building materials.
When I renovated my house, I made frequent trips into those “houses” looking for a window or piece of trim. Rarely did you find anything worth re-using.
The junkyard was a wonderful “Welcome to Church Hill” landmark.
This thread is out of hand (or rather some of the comment-makers are). Why would anyone prefer vacant parking lots surrounded by chain link fences to infill? Nothing was torn down for these projects? Are buildings better without commercial? For those of you who bring up Nolde being under-occupied, remember Nolde was supposed to have first floor commercial (until a certain neighbor/jackass/planning commission member steamrolled that plan). If I were not a homeowner in CH and looking to rent, I would be 10 x more likely to pick a building with first floor commercial.
I prefer locally-owned businesses too, but there simply aren’t enough people living in our area to support mom and pop stores, the Ellwood Thompson’s type store that many of us want, and restaurants without economies of scale (even Hill Cafe has this as part of the Richmond Restaurant group). There are many reasons why places like Que Pasa and the Camping Store don’t make it, but the biggest two are under-capitalization and a a lack of customers. 500 new tenants — predominantly young professional and MCV students — might allow businesses to thrive. And hell, it would be nice to have some stores, even “CHAIN” stores, so that we could go clothes shopping without having to drive to Short Pump.
I have to agree with you, Amy. I think this will be a case of if you build it they will come. Bring in more decent apartments and you will see more people moving to the area. Once you are increasing your population density, the retail location will start to pick up. Now we just have to hope the crime doesn’t scare the new neighbors away.
Slightly off subject but we desperately need a department store downtown. Where can I buy quality shoes (a basic need) for a modest price without having to drive for 20 minutes? Right now our choices in the city are over priced or cheap plastic shoes.
One other off the subject point -hoping to see a National Slavery Museum in the bottom. http://richmondgrid.com/index.asp?id=383 note: SMBW architects were the collaborators with the London firm on the VMFA
http://www.nbc12.com/Global/story.asp?S=12668147
They are so much taller than the nearest buildings, that’s my one big complaint. The one at 19th and Broad is already towering over the original brick houses on 19th called Elm Tree Row. And the ones at 21st and Main are towering over the fire station building. I don’t have a problem with adding people to the area, as Amy says in #67 it might just bring us commercial stuff, but it is the scale of the developments that bothers me.
I’m no Eddie Slipek, the architectural historian critic who writes sometimes for Style Mag., but even I can see that these buildings will dramatically change the landscape. And while I have no problem with adding density, I’m just a little sad that the buildings are so much taller than their neighboring buildings. Not that anything can be done about it at this point, they’re already being built.
#66 appears to prefer pilfering vacant buildings to purchasing architectural pieces legally. That seems a shame. I hope there aren’t still too many other folks around who prefer that method.
ok #66 i’m sorry you want Richmond to stay the same and never change, please all of the empty lots will fill up in time and those run down building are running them selfs into the ground for a reason, the reason is so that developers will be able to gentrify the lot with no protest because the lot will look like crap and it is always nice to see new bigger buildings go up in place. maby you may not like that style but other people do everyone had different opinions
Kyle, I fail to see what Libby Hill Residents’s #66 remarks have to do with change?
First off, I am for change “if” what is changed fits the surrounding landscape in historical areas.
I am also for change for downtown but it will never happen. We have been given one broken promise after another until now it falls on deaf ears. And any new high-rises are out of the question since some stupid rules limits a building’s height for a 30-40-50 story high-rise is out of the question unless the rules are changed.
Remember, Richmond is bigger than just Shockoe or Church Hill. Yet, it is these areas protected by Historical Landmark designations that should be preserved and new infill made to look historic. The “false historicism” bullshit needs to stop. If people can’t tell if it is new or old and/or it be documented on deeds then “let the buyer beware”. I am all for making a building look period (18-19th century architecture) and reusing building materials that fit the style and timeframe of the house. If one can find photographs or sketches of the property when it was first built or soon afterwards, fine. But hoses North of Broad are rarely documented so have to use both common sense and best guess sometimes.
When someone tears down a house or building, something along the same style or time period should be constructed there even if the land is repurposed.
Steven
I’ve never lived anywhere where people were so obsessed with race and class. It would be funny if it weren’t so sad. Ha!