RECENT COMMENTS
JessOfRVA on then it happens to you...
Becky Metzler on Updated! Guess what's happening on Mosby/Venable?
Mary on then it happens to you...
Sid on then it happens to you...
Becky Metzler on Church Hill Startup Tackles Insurance for Freelancers
Neighbor on then it happens to you...
Dan Rooney on then it happens to you...
CAR agenda includes look at four new buildings
01/13/2012 6:15 AM by John M
The agenda for the January 24, 2012, meeting of the Committee of Architectural Review (PDF) includes 3 projects in the area: 2102-2104 E BROAD ST Revise design of previously-approved new duplexes; 619-621 N 28TH ST Revise design of previously-approved new duplexes; 202 N 20TH ST Construction details and modifications to the ground level of a partially- approved multi-family dwelling; 1903 E MARSHALL ST Construct new multi-family dwelling.
Does anyone have any info on the 2102 and 2104 Broad st duplex project? The permit says ” 2 Unit 3 Story Town Homes” and I was just curious what these will look like?
BAC #1, I have a memory of seeing some drawing here on this blog way in the past. John Murden, do you remember that? Maybe it was a past presentation to CAR? I’m thinking it was several years ago and I don’t know how far back the archives go, nor do I know what search term to use.
crd, I’ve found the link you were talking about…thanks for the heads up!
http://chpn.net/news/2009/02/20/houses-for-the-2100-block-of-broad-street_4431/
BAC wow, big time thanks! You have great researching skills when it comes to the archives, and I have a bunch of respect for that! However, now I wonder what they are doing to revise the design?
Not really related to it, but RBVa is putting up a really nice porch on their duplex on the NE corner of 21st and Broad, right next to the vacant lot where these duplexes are proposed, and so far looks really great, the trim at the top is wonderful. It’s not finished but looks great so far. I hope the duplex revision fits in with the rest of the block, would be a shame if CAR approves some weird construction there. The rest of that block on Broad is intact.
And the leaning house on 21st Street was supposedly sold at foreclosure sometime in the last few months but as of Friday, the courthouse records room had no new deed recorded….would be nice if someone could fix it up, that would really put a nice touch on that block of 21st Street just north of Broad….
crd, I’ve been watching the porch progress too as I’m able to walk past it each day on my way to and from work. It certainly makes the house look complete and knowing RBVa is doing it you know it’ll be done right.
The leaning house on 21st still appears to be on the market (at least on Zillow) and has just dropped in price to 60K. I think even at that price it’s not quite economical to renovate.
It’s good to see the empty lots being built upon, I just wish the renderings had some more detail. I’m a little surprise the design was approved if that’s all they saw. The height doesn’t bother me too much since there’s an original 3 story duplex up the street…the materials and detailing are what will make or break this project. Here’s to a house with no corrugated metal or Dryvit!
I noticed the infill going up quickly though it took 3-1/2 years to get started!
It is a mystery as to why people no longer are active to make the C.A.R. adhere to codes and regulations set forth by their home office – which is to preserve historic houses and neighborhoods.
Here are two multi-family units 3-floors high going up that look flat-faced and generically plain. It sits squarely between two 19th century houses and the rules about in-fills state that it has to reflect the architecture period of its immediate surroundings. Tell me how this modernistic drab building fits in with 19th century architecture? And why no one even voiced an opinion about it as in years past?
Eric, I agree that the community dropped the ball big time on these duplexes. How were these things approved? Beyond their sheer ugliness, the completely cut off a number of houses from the view that they previously enjoyed. More construction from the asshole school of architecture – big, cheap looking, hogging and blocking views that the rest of the community enjoyed, and no regard for historical character. Basically, build it fast and make a quick buck.
These 4-plexes sure did slip under the radar. Even though there was a CAR meeting held for 10/28/2008 about them, was the meeting advertised so the public could chime in or was it just done without notice?
I think issues like this should be printed in the newspaper.
I have seen copies of the approvals and changes to take place but a couple of things stood out.
First, these were designed by non other than David Johannas who has done so many of the inappropriate futuristic designs within our historic district. He also left a design change meeting due to “conflict of interest”.
Then there were pages in the O&H guidelines CAR abides cited but at the same time concerning the height, they were cutting off 18-inches yet it doesn’t seem to have happened to conform.
Then there is the issue of misintrerpetation of the standards about infills where they take it too literal about making them look different. It doesn’t say to make them look Radically different.
A well known author about such issues with historic districts around the country – Steve Semes, tries to shed some light on this and Portland Oregon ran into similar situations. Links of interest below.
http://www.historicpreservationleague.org/press/traditional-building_com_clem_labine.pdf
http://www.historicpreservationleague.org/FieldNotes/HPLOSpecialReport-CompatibleInfillDevel.pdf
It is time for some changes in the CAR’s view of design and opening of eyes on the City Council so our historic district is destroyed forever.
Completely agree Steven. I posted a lot of similar concerns on one of the other random threads semi-related to this development.
http://chpn.net/news/2012/05/04/21st-and-broad_22353/
It would be great if we could use this building as a rallying point to draw some focus on:
1. How CAR members are allowed to have conflicts of interests like this and how we could prevent this (and I’m sorry, leaving the room is not sufficient cover…)
2. Coming up with clearer guidelines for infill that prevent crap like this from being built
3. Making the public review process more transparent. The current method of sending a letter that requires someone to take a day off and go visit City Hall to see the plans is not really all that helpful. Most of the time this is a wasted effort so when it’s really nasty folks don’t catch it in time. It’s 2012, do you think we could get an online site that has materials and upcoming agenda items.
(Also, John, is there any way we could one thread on this house so we could consolidate discussion instead of having to hunt back in the deep deep archives to find these old threads from when this was originally approved? It’s definitely a topic of current interest.)
The Broad St duplexes went to CAR at least 3 times (each with public notice) and also was presented to the neighborhood. There was much discussion at CAR but ultimately the project was approved with several changes.
Steve Semes spoke recently in Richmond and I was amazed at how many times he contradicted himself in the same breath. There will never be agreement between the various interests on how to infill in historic neighborhoods.
@Alex – the best I can do is this: I’ve tagged every post for this project as “2102-2104 East Broad”, so they are all accessible in one place: http://chpn.net/news/tag/2102-2104-east-broad/
Good enough, thanks.
@10 – not sure if it would matter if the things went through 50 times. The point is more that the current notification process is inadequate, the renditions submitted didn’t give any idea just how massive and loud these would look in real life and there were some borderline shady dealings that allowed this to slip through. If the process is self-dealing and people don’t see what they are getting, there’s a problem.
True Alex… there is not adequate means to notify the mass public about these projects so there can be roundtable discussions about designs. I know the process was better years past where the CAR would send out letters to neighbors around the construction area notifying of any kind of work. Offer several meetings in the evenings or if during the day, can send in written concerns to the council. And the CHPN here use to highlight these agendas as well but not as prominent as in years past.
I still can’t wrap my head around why every project Johannas gets a hold of has to have his signature industrial looking additions or siding? Horrid!
In one of the links I provided was a booklet put out by Historic Preservation League of Oregon about Compatible Infill Design. They have a stronger support as it was mentioned 200 people in Portland came for discussions about guidelines which they do use the National Register and Federal Programs standards put out by the Secretary of Interior. Their principles for Compatible Infill includes (please take note of #4):
1) The District is the Resource, Not its Individual Parts which says the design must protect the integrity of the overall historic district.
2) New Construction Will Reinforce the Historic Significance of the District.
3) New Construction Will Complement and Support the District.
4) Infill Will Be Compatible Yet Distinct. Here is our major problem but they define it this way… ” Style is discouraged from being the primary indicator of differentiation. New buildings should be identifiable as being of their period construction; however, they should not be so differentiated that they distract from – or visually compete with – their historic neighbors. Within historic districts, compatibility is more important than differentiation. ”
5) The exterior Envelope and Patterning of New Buildings Will Reflect District Characteristics.
6) Contributing Buildings Will Not Be Demolished to Create Infill Opportunities.
7) Archeological Resources Will Be Preserved in Place or Mitigated.
We need stronger public support against these infill atrocities within one of the oldest districts in the country and needs to be stopped before too many are constructed!
Also, didn’t I see that Johannas is wanting to add one of his junk additions to the old East End Theater on 25th Street (rooftop)? I am glad the CHA people turned the proposal down. Why can’t Johannas just restore and preserve rather than have to keep adding these out of character for historic district additions to his projects?
Steven,
We don’t even need to look to Portland for clear standards of what infill should look like. Our own CAR has pretty good ones:
http://www.richmondgov.com/CommissionArchitecturalReview/documents/Old_Historic_Dist.pdf
From page 44 (new construction standards):
“Perhaps the best way to think about a compatible new building (or addition) is that it should be a good neighbor”
“New infill construction should respect the prevailing front and side yard setback patterns of the surrounding block. The minimal setbacks evident in most districts reinforce the traditional street wall.”
Page 45:
“New construction should maintain the existing human scale of historic residential and commercial neighborhoods. The inappropriate use of monumentally-scaled buildings that overwhelm pedestrians at the street level is strongly discouraged.”
“New construction should respect the typical height of surrounding houses and commercial structures.”
They just don’t follow them… at least when one of their buddies wants to slip something through.
Problem is Alex… the Richmond CAR guidelines they see as just that, guidelines and not written in stone.
The one in Portland that I was only using as an example (and there are other cities with similar rule books), just makes it more clear with less loopholes for interpretation.
Problem is that our CAR thinks making a building look different to distinguish from a 19th century building has to be radically different.
We have proper use examples around town like the Better Housing Coalition has the right idea. There was even an example in the same booklet I was mentioning with a picture of a new infill done in Portland that won an award but do it here in Richmond they would cry “false historicism”… their catch-all phrase to weasel their way out of doing the correct thing.
The example I was mentioning:
http://www.ashland.or.us/Images/ImageManager/11_First_St.jpg
This building design would work just fine here in Richmond so… why don’t they design them like this rather than something that looks like it came out of a Mad Max movie?
There are other infills in Church Hill. Try the condos at the northeast corner of 25th and Franklin. I remember when that was an empty lot that was used for dumpster storage. Now it’s brick condos that used to be called Charity Square, I’m not sure what the title is now. Also, there’s a brick building tucked back on Short 30th Street that initially caused a lot of concern with neighbors, but it ended up fitting in fine. All I’m saying is, infill CAN be done so it doesn’t stick out like the proverbial sore thumb, but it does not seem to be happening these days.
I’d like to chime in and say that I love the infill that all of you seem to hate, especially the David Johannas work. I don’t know the man, I’m not connected to him in any way, but I find his buildings exciting and fresh. They feel like a continuation of the previous architecture of the area, not something in conflict.
You should all be way more worried about the cheaper plastic infill around the edges of the historic districts. The Better Housing Coalition houses are decent, better than most, but still really quite plain. Their renovations have really outpaced their new construction infill.
Gerg, pass that joint when you’re done with it.
There is no other explanation for how you can see this heaping pile of monkey dung that Johannas has dumped as a “continuation” of anything that has ever been seen around here. It bears more resemblance to a trash compactor than a historic home.
gerg… I am sure you are in the under 30 year old mindset group? Wanting fresh and new as well as radical. You are from a different era with different ideologies. But those views have their place… just not within historical districts. Like the Portland guidelines says… “compatibility is more important than differentiation”. That may seem like boring designs to you but that is the way it should be. If you want modernistic designs then do so outside of historic districts. We are talking about a few blocks near the downtown area, not an entire city anyway. Respect your history and heritage which includes architecture rather than raping and destroying it.
Gerg is on it -Alex is just an old fashioned bully who thinks he knows it all
WTF is up with these trolls coming out of the woodwork on this? I find it hard to believe that there are two people on this earth who find this building attractive.
If anyone seriously thinks this is a great design supported by the community, try knocking on some of the doors next to it. I think you will find unanimous hatred of the hulking design and loud style from those folks. If others find it appealing, that’s their right but it’s pretty ugly to look at it in person.
John,
Is there a way to see more than the last 5 posts of a topic on the main page? Once someone makes a comment on an old post like this and it drops under the 5 post then no one will know there is anything new to read unless they do a specific search for the topic and that is unlikely.
Thanks!
Alex, no use to get mad at these few people who think they have a right to destroy history as they see fit. Unfortunately most of the under 30 crowd these days thinks anything “old” should be trashed. They have no use for antiques or the classics either.
Just know as you mentioned that if they were to take a survey around the neighborhoods the results would be much different than they believe. Problem is that these new building designs are not being made high profile knowledge to the general public “before” construction so those opposed could make a difference.
As long as we have people like David Johannas on the CAR board then there will always be issues. I feel that his position is a conflict of interest in that anyone on the board should not be active in his or hers own field. They may have the knowledge but not the influence to make things happen for their own hidden agendas either in design or for monetary gain.