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
More on the Marshall Street apartments
03/06/2012 7:14 PM by John M
Richmond BizSense has an update on the apartments coming below Jefferson Park:
A local developer is getting closer to building a large apartment building at the border between Church Hill and Shockoe Bottom and hopes to break ground within the year.
Fred Cox of Marcellus Wright Cox Architects said designs, costs and financing had not been set for the building at 1903 E. Marshall St. because the firm was still working with the city and waiting for a final architectural approval. The finished product should be four stories and between 120 and 130 apartments.
TAGGED: 1903 East Marshall Street
more boring apartments, are the others filled and can’t anyone make something original that does not look like ALL of VCU’s new boring buildings?
Ugh, I’m all for growth in the area and turning the area around, but PLEASE no more new construction! We have so many blighted properties that would look much better if they were fixed up.
Can’t we make a rule that if you are a developer here in Richmond you have to renovate or turn around one blighted or abandoned property before you can build a new one?
Observer #2, good idea even though it won’t come to pass.
My problem (aside from the looks of this) is the parking down there is already horrible. I hadn’t driven through there in awhile, so last Saturday I took Marshall all the way from 32nd to 17th – and when I got down west of 21st St., it was actually hard to navigate with so many parked cars, particularly in the area where these bldgs. are planned. It’s so congested, and that wasn’t even on a weekday. Where the heck are all the new folks going to park? And don’t tell me the plans call for on-site parking, ’cause it’s obvious that the other places aren’t providing enough parking on-site.
Observer, I like the idea but am not sure how it would work in practice. Anything that creates demand for blighted properties would benefit the very folks who let them get blighted most. I know the historians here will bash me for saying this but some of the blighteds are also too far gone to be cost effective to save. If a developer is building here, it’s a sign that the market doesn’t think there are enough homes available that are worth fixing up profitably.
You can probably solve one of the problems at a time but not both. For example, a certain number of new construction permits in an area could force demolition of all blighted property within a certain radius so slumlords aren’t benefiting from the investments that were made necessary because they wouldn’t do shit.
Or just charge a lot more fees to build new based on how many vacancies are in an area. The fee would be waived on renovation projects. This could hold back progress though and create a double hit on the neighborhoods that need it most.
Ultimately, there’s little chance the city will do any of these, though it’s an interesting debate in theory. Developers know that a small investment made to city officers keeps those officers from passing any policies that would truly address blightedness and/or stop the constant march of ugly new buildings made with substandard materials.
Architecturally, the firm who designed this should be ashamed. Why can’t anyone design something that has some character. This looks like the love child of the McDonald’s apartments and the one that just came to Broad (and is still largely vacant from the looks of it) – bland and cheap. Why build a building that looks like what folks are moving back to the city to get away from. This one belongs in short pump.
It seems like every time a new development is proposed within or just outside of CH, CHPN becomes a forum for residents to complain. What would make you folks happy?
This building will fit well into the existing urban fabric and will add to the density our city needs to support a more robust public transportation system. It’s not going to be anything flashy or sophisticated architecturally, but what do you expect out of a new apartment building in Richmond, Virginia?
Parking may be an issue right now but ideally it will be resolved once people realize using public transportation is more affordable than owning an automobile. And like I said, increased population density typically leads to more demand for public transportation, which will hopefully lead to a more robust transportation system (light rail, etc).
I hate to say it all of the new vcu constructions for parking decks and buildings are beginning to have the same design plan. I work at vcu and see all this new brick buildings as one solid brick road. One good design plan…The new art gallery that will be built on the corner of belvidere and broad will be refreshing, they brought in an intl architect…no brick.
Ange, I’m stoked for the new VCU Institute for Contemporary Art building!
They are street cleaning today the south side of the street. There is only one sign posted at the bottom of the hill. And all the cars that didn’t see the one sign are being towed now. That will most likely set many families back. Damn city
My car got towed from N. 26th Street. Didn’t see any signs posted when I parked it the night before. $95 error:(
“Parking may be an issue right now but ideally it will be resolved once people realize using public transportation is more affordable than owning an automobile. And like I said, increased population density typically leads to more demand for public transportation, which will hopefully lead to a more robust transportation system (light rail, etc).”
I do not disagree with you, JD, but realize this may be wishful thinking in Richmond. State and federal susbidies for public transportation are disappearing and the only thing a lot of the grand poo-pahs around here are interested in is tourist trolleys that do not effectively address public transportation.
GRTC Task Force public hearing tomorrow night at City Council chambers.
JD – I agree with you that more density and a place that is not parking friendly may increase interest in public transit, but I think the developers should also then have to make some of that investment in better public transit themselves. I don’t think it a good idea to say if we let them build poorly, then that will make people want transit later, because there is going to be an in between period where parking and driving through that area is absolutely horrible, and the end point we are looking forward to of good mass transit might not even materialize anyways and then we are just left with a crap apartment complex nobody will want. I think it needs to be built to fully accommodate and help be a catalyst for transit from day one, rather than transit be a reaction to their poor planning.
Parking, Smarking
In richmond, hiring a council person’s relative as a consultant is all it takes to get approval for a development. Be it a nice apartment building or a 5 story high pile of feces.
Just ask Maggie Fruend and her LAVA LOFTS.
How much mass transit do we need for the folks in these apartments? One bright spot with these eyesores is that folks who live in them can at least walk to work or use existing GRTC routes. That’s a nice step in the right direction. (Maybe GRTC will finally become profitable then) We should be focusing on making downtown more walker/biker friendly instead of all these elaborate schemes like the Route 5 corridor targeted at the people who live outside the city. Despite my gripes with the aesthetics of these new buildings and the disregard for public sitelines their developers had, they are at least enabling a more sustainable environment.
I’d rather have 25 more of these than dump a bunch of money into infrastructure that is mostly for folks who live outside of the city. That’s not sustainable, economically or environmentally. A few sidewalk upgrades and this problem is solved. Let the folks in the suburbs worry about how to fix their mess and don’t shit all over our downtown or use our tax dollars to solve it for them.
An improved pedestrian/bicyclist environment will become a reality before public transit is significantly improved. The city just hired a “Bike Czar,” so we’ll hopefully see bicycle infrastructure/facility improvements in the near future.
Going back to the original discussion, what do you folks want to see in place of the proposed apartment building?
Bret, how is the proposed apartment complex “crap?” What constitutes crap?
This building will do a great job of blocking the view from the montessori school. how long before some one buys out the row of homes and the school and replaces them as well? Or screw it, we could create a lot more density if we knock down all the single family homes on the hill and build more apartments that will inevitably sit empty.
The parcel to be developed is more or less empty. Should we impede progress on account of the school’s view?
I don’t think anybody is advocating for tearing down single-family residences in CH. The location of the proposed building seems appropriate.
The next commenter to say or imply existing apartment buildings in the area are “vacant” or “empty” should back up their argument with facts. How do any of us know the vacancy rates of those buildings? From what I understand, very few units are vacant. And do you really think a developer is going to build a 130-unit apartment building if a demand does not exist?? Give them some credit.
REMINDER: Although it may not seem like it at times, we live within a mile of the urban core of a large metro area. High density residential buildings are the norm near the core of most urban areas.
JD, you can start about a block from this site where there’s the new apartments on Broad that are still more than half empty as near as I can tell from the outside. Yes, demand has been high the past few years but this has to end somewhere and we are likely nearing that point soon. Most of the demand was also concentrated in the older loft style buildings that had character and history. I don’t think McDonalds apartments or whatever they are called is full or anywhere near and the other one isn’t either.
On a different note, what’s your tie to all this? Never seen you post on anything other than threads about all the god-awful new construction being crammed on the city. Do you live on the Hill? Just curious as it seems odd that your only opinions to date seem to be that folks here should just shut up and take it up the ass. I was wondering if you had a stake in this or something. If that is the case, would be nice if you’d be transparent about that.
JD #10, sorry you got towed. There was ONE sign on the west side of 26th last week, but I’m not sure if it stayed up through the snow on Monday.
As to the proposed apts.: I think they are ugly but that doesn’t matter as I also think most of the other new ones are ugly. My problem remains with the increased parking problems that all this development is bringing. To those who think that this will bring increased attention to public transit, I say, well yea, attention maybe but it will not get many people to take a bus. Sure, one or two maybe but not masses, and it will most def. not get light rail into Richmond anytime soon. In fifty years maybe, but not soon.
JD #15, I agree, there seems a possibility that more bicycle friendly stuff will be happening soon. I’m not so sure about pedestrian friendly; consider the comment on the other thread about Route 5, someone said his problem is trying to cross Main St. to take his dog to the river. JD take a ride down Marshall Street this coming weekend, start at 26th and try to go all the way to 17th, as I did last Saturday, and then post back and tell what it feels like to you. I’m curious to hear someone else talk about that. To me, it’s already seriously congested down there.
#13 badger: I know quite well who she is (and don’t care for her style), but who did she hire to make it happen, and which ones are the Lava Lofts? You mean the stuff at the dead end of Broad St? Just curious. Thankfully at least so far she’s not involved with this latest development.
What was the last building that was architecturally interesting? I’m not a critic and am beginning to wonder if just because it doesn’t look like old buildings people claim its not interesting. I’m glad to see these built with brick.. Long lasting and nicer than a ton of other materials.
I would argue that developers overbuilt during the boom. But we’re not in a boom and if the surrounding properties were vacant these wouldn’t make it through to financing with market studies and appraisals saying that.
Alex makes the best point IMO. We already have infrastructure to this site. Let’s capitalize on the investment.
If you don’t like the blighted properties don’t punish the developers in the city. Punish the blighted property owners. AND support the non-profits addressing it. Better Housing Coalition, project:Homes, etc.
Lava Lofts are the new apartments going in by Blue Wheeler in old Chimborazo Elementary. For all the heat they took on these, I much prefer them cosmetically.
Alex, I live at N. 26th and E. Broad and have no affiliation with this particular project (or any other development project occurring in the city). I don’t know why many residents of CH feel like they are being screwed by the developer every time a new apartment building is built. Residents of CH have every right to voice their opinions about new development within and adjacent to the neighborhood but opinions are rarely positive. I’m just offering a different perspective.
crd, I’m familiar with the parking situation down there and to be honest, I wish fewer surface lots existed. It’s difficult to retrofit old buildings to include garage parking so surface lots are oftentimes the only option (I’m not a fan of parking minimums). Garage parking, located in the basement of the apartment building, can be a reality with new construction. The proposed apartment building includes garage parking.
Parking doesn’t necessarily bother me because once it becomes too much of a hassle or too expensive to park down there, residents will ditch their cars for other forms of transportation. Maybe I’m being too idealistic:)
The Commission of Architectural Review is still working with the developer on what this building will look like.
For those of you who have concerns about it’s appearance, please contact Catherine.Easterling@Richmondgov.com (secretary for CAR) or the CAR members directly and let your concerns be known.
Act within the next few days, because the CAR has been reviewing this project since December, and I probably trying to wrap things up with the developer/architect.
For those of you with concerns about traffic, congestion, pedestrian friendliness, etc, I understand that the project has yet to go thru a “site review” with another group of city planners. Ms. Easterling has told me that step will also open for public comment.
sorry, typo in above post. 3rd paragraph, 2nd line should read: “is trying to wrap things up”.
What would residents of CH like to see on this parcel of land?
http://www.theatlanticcities.com/neighborhoods/2012/03/why-dont-real-estate-developers-just-ask-us-what-we-want/1439/
I just sent a message to the above site. Asking that they think of the view from Jefferson hill park . I would hate to be staring at another rooftop of inefficient, ugly. Wasteful,air con units on the roof of proposed building…. There is at least 30 or more units on the mcdonalds building . It is very bad design
Come on, people! This will be built on a vacant lot that has recently housed a crappy trailer from the 1970s serving as an insurance agency (CH luddites will claim it was historical), a dirt parking lot, and a dumping ground for excess building supplies.
By all means, build an apartment building and bring more density and population to this area of Shockoe Bottom. I suspect the developer and lender have more information about the demand for additional residential development than the guy who drives by a different building a couple times a week.
I am not crazy about the design, and people who live in these blocks may have to acclimate themselves to parking difficulties (as every resident does in every other dense urban area on earth) if the garage parking is insufficient, but additional residential development is good for the neighborhood and good for the city. The developer is not destroying historical houses in Church Hill, they are adding in-fill in Shockoe. Get over it, Church Hill!
JD #24, I think you are being too idealistic. When the parking reaches a critical mass, they don’t ditch their cars, they just look for creative places to park, often illegally. Case in point: the new apartment bulding at 21st and Main. Several times I’ve had to cross the double yellow line, facing on coming traffic, to get around a semi that was double parked to unload at the ABC store. Reason: there is a loading zone, clearly marked – but it’s full of cars belonging to the people who live in the building, because the on-site parking is insufficient. My latest thing is going to be to ask the cops to enforce the loading zone during the day because the ABC delivery trucks create a serious traffic hazard.
@29–you know, I hate that stupid trailer (from the former used car dealership,) too. But it is NOT on the property that 1903 E. Marshall will inhabit. So, I wouldn’t expect it to go away just because this building is going up.
The new apartment building at 1903 E. Marshall will not consume the entire block southward to Broad. It will front Marshall Street (from 20th west to Cedar) and stop just short of the row of red brick houses on Cedar (close to the corner of Broad).
Observations made during my walk yesterday:
The vacant parcel of land on which the apartment building will be located is littered with waste and what appears to be building supplies.
The viewshed from Central Montessori is marginal at best. The apartment building may block afternoon sunlight from reaching the building.
The viewshed from Jefferson Hill will not be impeded by the apartment building. The top of the building will be visible but the tops of many buildings are already visible so what’s the big deal?
New sidewalks will be constructed to facilitate pedestrian traffic. Sidewalks do not exist at present.
Traffic may or may not be an issue but shouldn’t be a dealbreaker for this project. We shouldn’t allow automobiles to dictate or development patterns. If we do, we might as well live in suburbia.
Mucks, how would your developers know best theory explain the dozens of McMansion farms left vacant when the housing bubble burst? These guys are trying to make a buck and nobody wants to admit their business model is drying up. There were plenty of folks who saw that tide turning but the developers weren’t usually among them.
crd #30 – JD that is basically what I meant by “crap” apartments. That this isn’t going to result in a eutopian society where everyone in this new building sees the light and walks because parking sucks. Sure a few people will walk/bike/GRTC, but I bet hundreds of people are still just going to bring their cars anyways and park where they can and make things even worse down there. I’m not necessarily saying public transit is the answer, but what I am saying is the developer should have to be the one to put in the infrastructure and make the improvements to handle the increased density they will be profiting from, whether that is sidewalk improvements, bike lanes, transit or whatever.
@27: I’d love to see some of the retail that all these new residential buildings are supposed to bring in come in soon. A better grocery store, some shops, etc.
We keep hearing that once we hit a certain density, they’ll come and we’ll all benefit. Seeing some of this start would ease a lot of the concerns about even more residential popping up with no clear line of sight to retail following. If the retail comes, it would ease the demand on infrastructure also since folks wouldn’t need to drive everytime they want to buy something. That would drop another one of the common complaints.
Alex, I agree and thank you for making a good point.
Bret, as I said earlier, parking should not be a deal-breaker for any project in the city. As for your opinion on who should pay for the new infrastructure, that issue is totally out of our hands.
I think this development looks pretty attractive compared to others. For example, Cedar-Broad IS hideous, but mostly because McDonalds wouldn’t move producing the unattractive u-shape. It’s on an empty, trashy field which could be great green-space if managed as a park, but since it is private property just looks sad and abandoned. So from an in-fill standpoint, it makes sense. The plans include underground parking and a pool! It would be great to get some greenspace and first-floor retail into the mix as well. Added sidewalks (@JD) will certainly improve that part of Marshall and make the kids at the school safer too. I’d love to see Marshall Street become one way from Oliver Hill until 23rd at least, or make it a no-parking zone. Right now with all the parking,construction, and bus detours, it’s quite dangerous. I think with these simple modifications this complex could add to the Hill.
I’m a home-owner so I’m not really in the apartment market, but a friend called on the new Broad street apartments and they were full. No idea about Cedar-Broad.
I am all for growth. I am also all for brick buildings IF they fit in with a historic look instead of looking like something out of the Soviet Block or the Middle East. The ones going up recently are bland, boring, and look like a 5 year old designed them. If they want to modernize then stop being so frickin’ conservative and go ultra modern but with taste. Chome and Glass or something. But please no more carbon copy VCU building that seem to inch their way closer and closer into Church Hill!
I thought I saw somewhere not long ago about prohibiting parking on Marshall in that area because of the conjestion problem?
Rooftop dogpark. Would be sweeeeeeet… Just dreaming
JD… the parking comment is a bit shortsighted. First, when Cedar Broad was built wasn’t there enough parking factored in for the tenants? Why do we have such a street congestion issue since it was built on those blocks of Marshall? But this is a hazard the way it is right now. Cars can be easily broadsided, turning corners is difficult, and people can pop out between these cars at any time while the driver’s focus is on not hitting a car. Yes, move to suburbia IF the city and/or architects don’t provide adequate amount of tenant parking when designing these boring monstrosities.
Eric, thank you for sharing your opinion. This building will likely be built so we’ll see if the parking situation improves, gets worse, or stays the same. I have a feeling new parking signage and enforcement is on the way to this area of the city.