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
21st and Broad (1916)
05/04/2012 8:08 AM by John M
Looking west on Broad Street from between 21st and 22nd Streets:
ABOVE 1916 / BELOW 1920 via Vintage Richmond
Neat to see Trinity Methodist / New Light Baptist before the steeple came off…
Love that steeple. And look at all the trees down Broad Street.
Lovely
Anybody ever notice these pictures are always taken when the trees are bare? And also is the grade of Broad St. different in this picture? That block is empty now and the weird service station would be on the bottom right correct?
Bottom left is where the Exxon would be. You’re looking down Broad from Church Hill in this pic.
That block sure looked nicer when all the houses were similar height and size. Now that big abomination that somehow slipped by CAR fucks the whole block up. Wonder how much they had to kick back to city and CAR to butcher the block that bad.
How about the church with the missing steeple? I also think that’s a pretty embarrassing sight for the neighborhood. This looks much more impressive.
@Alex You are right!
x3 on Alex’s comment, way too big.
@boz The steeples were taken down from several area churches in the early 20th century (when it was Trinity Methodist before it fled to the suburbs) by a zealous building inspector. Apparently a steeple fell off a church in a storm, and the building inspector went on a campaign to have them removed for safety purposes. See also the former 3rd Presbyterian at 2517 East Broad Street which suffered the same fate.
On the subject of the monstrosity at 2104, anyone else notice the listing for these things? The realtor has the gall to use shots of the neighbor’s backyard to sell these things.
We were wondering whether the neighbors might have a case against the realtor for using their property in advertising (presumably without their consent)? No doubt these neighbors are already pissed because they had a massive eye sore cut their previously pleasant view off. Now to rub salt in the wound, the folks responsible for said eye sore are taking advantage of their nice landscaping.
Link here, picture I’m referencing is fourth one:
http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/2104-E-Broad-Street-1-1-Richmond-VA-23223/2119518922_zpid/
It also appears that the developer plans for nine bedrooms in the two buildings and given that the house is targeted towards renters, it’s likely that there will be nine cars for this unit.
Anyone know how to find out if they bothered to set up parking for all these cars or if they are planning to shit on the community further with their lack of foresight in that area?
Nine more spots in an area that is already pretty full will not be easy to come across. This whole project is a textbook example of how to make a quick buck by taking advantage of a community and seems like the kind of thing all the review processes should be catching.
Alex, where do you get the 9 bedrooms from? Zillow listing indicates 2 bedrooms per home, for a total of 4 bedrooms across both homes. And why would you assume every person in every bedroom would require an individual car. Also, renters, generally, have lower incomes than owners and are more likely to NOT have cars.
It’s two duplexes. One has 2 + 2 bedrooms, the other 3 + 2 bedrooms. Your math may vary but I come up with 9 from that.
Anyone renting a unit at the price these things are going for has the money for a car. You’re fooling yourself if you think otherwise.
I’m definitely not saying folks need one car per person, just stating that it’s likely to be the case. My point is that it’s irresponsible for the developer to skip planning for parking but I suspect that this was the case given their lack of consideration for their neighbors with their design in other aspects.
Alex, in general I agree with you but I looked at both your link to Zillow, and linked to the listing agents site, and I see two bedrooms and 2 1/2 bathrooms. I could only see the listing for Unit 1. Are you sure you aren’t confusing beds and baths? It’s definitely got an extra half bath.
And I totally agree about parking, it will be a real problem on that site. I have no clue how they intend to solve it.
#9 Matthew: the steeple on New Light Baptist was blown off during a hurricane, I think it was Camille but it could have been another one since then. It was definitely not just a ‘storm’ it was a large hurricane.
The former Pres. church (which is at 2515 East Broad, not 2517), is now the Belfry Condos, and was decommissioned when the church moved away some time before the building was turned into condos in the early 1980’s. Decommissioning means the cross was removed, not the steeple.
Your theory is interesting but I’ve never heard of a building inspector requiring church steeples to be removed. Matter of fact, St. James Episcopal on Franklin Street in the fan had their steeple hit by lightning during a bad thunder storm back in the 1990s and they rebuilt.
As far as I can decipher, this is what the layout is:
Two addresses
2102 – they have this listed for 600k for 5 bedroom duplex – selling both halves as one bundle. Listing mentions it will be cut into 3 and 2.
2104 – selling as condos, 250k each, each are 2 BR.
The complexity of the listing should give some idea what a bastard design this is. The sharp eyes and math majors will also notice that 2102 is priced quite a bit higher per square foot. Why is that?
Well it has an extra bedroom but that doesn’t seem to explain all of it. My guess is because of the nice view that these units will have.
Those who are really paying attention will also realize that this same view worth the big premium between 2102 and 2104, used to be accessible to the whole block because of the contour of the hill. Any guesses as to what they’ve done to their neighbors values in order to collect their extra view?
It seems to me watching this that someone really had a major grudge against the two houses uphill from it. Couldn’t have fucked them worse.
Alex – the project at 2104 didn’t slip by CAR, it was approved, with minimal comment, a CAR members’ firm designed the project…..
Thanks for the clarification. So it was an inside job as opposed to an end run. Knew it had to be one or the other since this goes against the entire intent of having CAR – preserve visual unity of a neighborhood.
Don’t know why, in all hese years, Trinity Methodist/New Light Baptist has not replaced the steeple. I can’t imagine that they couldn’t raise enough funds to do so. I bet many in the neighborhood would be interested in donating. It may not be a blight on the neighborhood, but it’s the first church that welcomes you to Church Hill and it would be nice if it were restored to it’s original glory. Further, with all the construction going on in C.H. and Shockoe, couldn’t they got some of the contractors and Lowe’s in on this project? It doesn’t seem like that difficult an undertaking.
Kafer,
I went back to the original minutes for this because I was curious how this could have passed and it doesn’t sound like “minimal comment” to me.
The board member who had the conflict of interest excused himself but I would argue that there’s still a pretty real conflict of interest that exists when the other members know one of their peers has a vested interest. These boards should not include folks whose designs might come up for votes, just to avoid any hint of conflict of interest.
Two of the members present, correctly zeroed in on the fact that this would be an eyesore because of its height. The other three basically rubber stamped it and it passed 3-2. Almost everything else discussed that night was unanimous, so this was hardly without controversy. I have a strong suspicion that if the person behind this project were not a peer, this might not have passed.
Here’s the minutes to save anyone who’s curious some time hunting them down. Discussion starts on page 27.
City planner also recommended the third floor be chopped off because of the lack of visual harmony it creates – as would any idiot with half a brain and a pair of eyes.
Link:
http://eservices.ci.richmond.va.us/applications/boardscommissions/DisplayMinutes.aspx?MFilePath=MIN09-23-08FINAL.pdf
Another great link that shows just how ludicrous this approval was for those interested:
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.”
Evidently this guide is meant to be used as toilet paper, at least for those on the board and their cronies. What a fucking joke…
Alex #21 and 22: many thanks for providing the link to the minutes of that meeting. I’ve now read them, and I’ve got one problem with them – not only did almost everyone object to the height, but “Ms. Sadler stated that it was usually the policy of the Commission to do two reviews of projects that were new infill.” Hence my question – did they ever meet again over this?
That same paragraph also has this: “Ms. Wimmer commented that she had a problem articulating the mass of the duplex and was not comfortable making decisions without pictures or detailed drawings.” That also leads me to wonder if they met again and discussed it. It appears to me that they approved the concept (“whereas, the application is approved in concept as submitted” – page 29). I’m wondering whether they ever discussed the height again, as some of the people on CAR were quite against it.
Otherwise, I’m impressed with your research, i have no clue how to find CAR minutes on the city’s site!
Good question crd. I am starting kind of in the dark about this project myself so I don’t know the whole flow of approvals. I saw something about it coming back in January of this year but those minutes are not public yet. If there were other approvals in the middle, I haven’t found them yet.
Anyone else know?
I have been looking for something about the road construction on 21st Street. Does anyone know anything about it, mostly about when it would stop?
It’ll be closed through June: http://chpn.net/news/2012/04/11/road-closed_22025/
Let me put my .02¢ worth in on a couple of comments here.
First, I love these pictures.
Second, the church steeple was damaged and removed from hurricane Hazel in 1954. See picture that John posted back in 2008 here of how it looked (bent from winds). Unless an inspector in the 1950s said to take them down, doubt that the “turn of the century” speculation holds water. I do miss the steeples. I think it is more a case of being “politically correct” and the ultra conservatism of Richmond to not have anything “tall”.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/murden/2465154944/sizes/o/
There was a campaign by the church about the same time to raise about $150k to replace the steeple back but not sure whatever happened to that?
Third, the new infill at 2102-2104 E. Broad is a total tragedy. By CAR guidelines not only is the architecture suppose to reflect what is immediately surround it but also the roofline is to not be different, there is a lot wrong with the design and not sure how this slipped by the CAR, if it did? There is nothing that even resembles the facade in the immediate area outside of another controversial building, the 2100, which isn’t a “house” but a new apartment building.
http://chpn.net/news/2009/02/20/houses-for-the-2100-block-of-broad-street_4431/
Eric
Let me throw a couple more pennies into the circle. Why does it take 2-3 months to lay down a 30-foot pipe across the street? It happened the same on a couple other side streets within the past year.
Eric,
I suspect the “slip” by CAR can only be accounted for by the membership of a Mr. Johannas on both the board and the development team for this construction. There’s no other explanation I can think of. Why the city has folks with clear conflicts of interests like this on CAR is beyond me. It basically defeats the whole purpose of having the board if crooks like Johannas can slip sub-standard trash through. On the other hand, they don’t have any problem carping about stupid stuff other people want to do.
Eric #29, it’s my understanding that they are having to tunnel the pipes in, as opposed to just digging a trench and lay the pipes in it. I’ve also heard that all the new construction just downhill (the apartments around the McDonald’s as well as the ones at 21st and Broad) caused the sewer to back up, hence the city had to enlarge the pipes. Why they are tunneling them in, I have no clue, it’s just what I was told.
In your post #28, Thanks also for clarifying that it was Hurricane Hazel, and not Camille. I don’t know what happened with the fund-raising drive, it just sort of disappeared.
Alex, oh yeah…. Ditto to what you said about Dave Johannas and his Frankenbuildings. He will continue to undermind the purpose of the C.A.R. and the reason they are here (Historical Preservation) but instead slap ultra modern elements that DO NOT BELONG within historic districts.