RECENT COMMENTS
307 North 21st Street facing demolition
From Douglas H. Murrow, Commissioner of Buildings:
Notice of Pending Demolition of Imminent Hazard to Public Safety – 307 North 21st Street
In accordance with Section 36-105 of the Code of Virginia, as the Commissioner of Buildings for the City of Richmond I have signed the attached imminent hazard order. This building has deteriorated to the point that its immediate removal is necessary. As a result of this order, the building will be removed, as soon as possible, by either the City of Richmond or the property owner.
If you have questions about the unsafe conditions and the code enforcement status of this building, please contact Michelle Coward, Code Enforcement Program Manager (at MICHELLE.COWARD@RICHMONDGOV.COM or 646-6357).
Please keep in mind that the issuance of the imminent hazard order means that in accordance with City Code Section Sec. 114-930.6. (j), for those properties in City Old and Historic districts demolition can proceed without a certificate of appropriateness being issued by the Commission of Architectural Review (CAR). Also if the building is an area identified for Federal funding, in accordance with the terms of the Richmond Programmatic Agreement, the City will complete Section 106 review of the property on an emergency basis.
With this house gone and along with the adjacent empty lots and empty lot where the Tricycle gardens was it’ll be interesting to see if this corner develops into something substantial. It really is the forgotten gateway into both Union and Church Hill. Sad to see the house go, but I think we can all agree it was beyond hope and made you feel seasick just looking at it.
I had wondered YEARS go why this was not condemned. It is off of the foundation in the rear and so it sits at an angle tilt. The blue house next door in the picture use to be the swayback building with the sunken roof but it was fixed up. We don’t want to loose any homes but we also have to look at the cost of a save versus the value of the house and the property.
If anyone has actually been to this house yes, it will throw your senses off. The windows, repairs, siding are all angles and fit like a piece of German Expressionism Art. Hints of Dr. Caligari !
I won’t be sad to see this one go. It really diminishes the value of the neighboring properties.
It was sold recently – so someone either HAS big plans, or HAD big plans that just got crushed.
(I know – I wanted to buy it – though in retrospect, probably a bad idea. I personally find all these topsy turvy houses charming, if they can be stabilized.)
In this case, I think the plans just got crushed. The good news is that the land value is worth more than the price paid…so, not a total loss. Could probably find a demo company to take it down for a few thousand bucks plus disposal fees.
@6 – HAS big plans, to tear it down and build multi-family there. I understand that he’s already put a dumpster in place – but it’s not on his land, it’s on the vacant lot next door, and the owner of said vacant lot did not give permission hence is not happy. Plus, to build multi-family there, the owner would have to have off-street parking – which, unless he builds a REALLY tall thing and dedicates a part of his lot for parking, would be hard to pull off.
To your second paragraph – I tried to buy it seven or eight years ago, and had a contractor who crawled underneath it, and it is capable of being stabilized. There were repairs made underneath, but the inside was not straightened which is why Eric (#4) thinks it is crooked. This house CAN be saved. I would much rather see it saved rather than torn down and go into a protracted battle with the city over putting in yet another ugly thing such as the property right around the corner on Broad Street (those ugly condos that didn’t sell and didn’t rent for the longest time – surely we all remember those).
What we need here is a single family house that is affordable, not more condos that are ugly. If it is torn down, we will be facing yet another CAR issue with ‘clearly differentiate new from old’ and we’ll get something ugly.
I seriously doubt that the engineer whom the owner hired went underneath this house. Most engineers don’t don coveralls and crawl underneath, particularly when the owner hired the engineer to do what the owner wanted, and provide a report that the house needs to be demolished. The city is just following the engineer’s report, until someone goes and contradicts it, which I hope will happen.
I know I’m gonna draw fire for this comment. Sorry but I really don’t want to see it torn down. We’ve got enough ugly condos already. And I’ve seen worse leaning houses that have been stabilized.
I agree with CRD … CAR should make it really difficult to tear anything down. This one has a pretty dramatic upper floor lean, but RBVa has already shown how that can be fixed in the blocks surrounding.
I looked at it with an architect. The house can definitely be saved. Wooden houses are relatively easy to fix. And it is a contributing structure. Sorry to see it go. No doubt we’ll get an incoherent monolith in its place. The Broad Street hill area is starting to look like Short Pump. Too bad, really.
“Members of the Commission of Architectural Review will meet with Commission staff at 307 North 21st Street on Tuesday, March 18, 2014, to discuss a proposal to demolish the building on the site. The meeting will begin at 4:30 PM.”
In theory it would be great to see every structure saved and preserved. But certain structures cost WAY too much to restore and stabilize, which renders the project economically un-feasible.
All of you who say things such as #6: “What we need here is a single family house that is affordable, not more condos that are ugly” – have absolutely no understanding of the real world, real estate development, or basic economics.
If the market value of a house after it is restored is $110/sq ft and it costs you $120/sq ft to buy and restore it, how exactly would you make it “affordable” for someone else or even turn a profit for that matter?
Again – I am all for restoring and preserving. But this demo, from my understanding, was approved by CAR, was approved by the City and THEN someone who has no economic interest in the deal stuck their nose in and cried foul. And now all of you, who also have no “skin in the game” are playing backseat real estate developer.
@Not realistic – In seriousness, please start coming to neighborhood meetings. Balance and wisdom is needed.
@12, How to make the numbers work: restore with Fed & State Tax Credits and City RE Tax Abatement. It’s no secret; lots of us have done it on condemned buildings–including ones that are in worse condition than this.
@10 you’re right about fixing a building with a serious lean. Just ask Matt Elmes/Atlantic Crest & CAR member how he did that with 2113 Jefferson Ave–which leaned heavily prior to restoration and is just around the corner from 307 N 21.
@12…Agreed. This property has nothing “historic” remaining. It’s an eyesore with very limited upside potential as a single family. The area is not so great and will never command big bucks for resale or as a rental. This house needs everything….what would be the incentive for any developer to sink big $$$ on this renovation when the payback is not going to be great? If it were a duplex or multi…that’s another story but, single families that need major rehabs and are in a C- locations…there’s no upside to this. I agree that folks who have no skin in the game should have no say about what happens here. The demo was approved…take it down and then let CAR do their thing in working with the investor/developer to put up a win-win for everyone. Just because there have been some atrocious mistakes by CAR around the block doesn’t mean that everything they’ve been involved with is bad.
Keep in mind “historic” doesn’t necessarily mean it has some historic event or person connected to it. It also means it is of a certain age and could be an early part of a neighborhood. I may be wrong but in early photographs I doubt this was there in the 1880s because the hill had not been grated (leveled) on that side of the street yet but cut through with walls on either side. There is a trolley picture that shows this section of the block.
Does anyone have anything to report on what happened between CAR and the Commission Staff meeting at this site last night?
Tim H… I wonder the same thing since I see no work or demo being done on this posted condemned building. I pass by it every day coming home from work and wonder “what and when” something is going to happen? It has been 6-months now.
I agree that we can not allow another atrocity like the 3 story bastard sitting between two ladies around the corner on Broad to happen again. Proper multi-family units can be built to fit into the historic fabric. It has been done before like in Jackson Ward and even in Church Hill and hard to tell that it isn’t an older home.
As for parking, where did the previous owner park? Or the blue house which was restored next door that once had the swayback roof? I thought it was on the side of the house? Remember, these houses were built when there were still horses on the street, people used trollies as a regular part of life, and later 1-car if that families. You have to figure that into the plans to allow for the excessive society we live in now with multiple vehicles – as we deal with daily in CH fighting for spaces.
Multiply the amount of living spaces per building you multiply the parking headache in a neighborhood designed for 1 parking space per property.
Eric, they decided that it’s not in immediate danger of collapse. Unfortunately, the owner appears to be somewhat stubborn – he paid $25,000 for it last June, and now wants three times that amount to sell it to someone who wants to restore it. He has indicated that he thinks he can get planning permission to build multi-family condos (similar to the ugly things around the corner), but there is no parking and no room for parking, so that permission will not happen. As you point out, the blue house has parking onsite. Long story short, we are now witnessing demo by neglect; the current owner will sit on it until it actually does become in danger of falling down. Then he will be sitting on a vacant lot.
The only other interesting thing about the house is that it has no floor boards on the first floor; the current owner claims that the previous owner removed and sold them, but we have no proof of that. Someone made a bit of money selling them off.
crd…sorry you’re disappointed with the current state of affairs with this property. What you seem to be forgetting is that this owner has rights. After all, he’s the one who took the risk (on many levels) to invest in this property. If you wanted to see a different outcome, then you should have purchased the property. Maybe then, your opinion would mean something. You’re playing armchair quearterback in a situation where you have no skin in the game and is frankly, none of your business.
From your posts, it’s obvious you have very little knowledge about real estate investing and making the numbers work in situations like this. This developer has every right to make money on his investment as he is shouldering all of the risk.
You can blow smoke all you want but due to the considerable cost of rehabilitating this property, it would be cost prohibitive to market this as a single family either as a resale or rental. This is driven largely by location–it’s challenging.
If this site was a lucrative investment, developers would have been lined up for this property; they weren’t. Where were all the big idea single-family restorers when the property originally sold for $25K?
@20, Laura – I find your comments somewhat caustic – please refer to this thread – /2014/06/25/still-trying-to-figure-out-how-the-comments-should-work-here-after-almost-10-years_35020/
Would you tell me to my face that I am blowing smoke?
That said, I did try to purchase it some years ago, but the then owner kept changing the purchase price. I absolutely do find it sad that it is now going to be demo by neglect. Also, kindly note that the blue house just south of it is single family, as are several others that RBVa has rehabbed around that corner from Broad up to Marshall. Single family with tax credits is the way to go, and this house, if it sold for the $25000 – 30 k range, would be a great investment with the tax credits. Unfortunately, the owner wants considerably more for it, which negates the investment with historic tax credits.
There is a brand new single family home for sale across the street. It is listed at $299,000. Someone did not find the location too challenging for investment.
@21, I find your comments and actively getting in the way of what a solid investment plan that would benefit the area equally distasteful. I will stand by my comments and I would certainly tell you to your face that you should really mind your own business especially when you are unaware of so many of the details. Equating this project to the “(similar to the ugly things around the corner)” is 100% irresponsible and inaccurate. Your busy-body nature is not helping anything to advance forward in a productive manner.
And @22… you can ask for any price you want, that doesn’t mean they’ll get it. I wish them luck.
And crd…remember that the developer of this project is one of YOUR Church Hill neighbors.
I helped David Cooley/RBVa save the green one right next door in 2005. It was in just as bad shape. This house should be renovated not demolished.
I am sorry laura, I also find your comments slightly out of line since everyone deserves an opinion. You are a bit shortsighted and it appears that you are saying that you are not working towards the benefit of preservation of our historic neighborhoods? Are we wrong in what is being interpreted in your posts? This house both sits in the Church Hill North Historic District and Church Hill Old & Historic so that means that the C.A.R. has to be involved with the planning of what is done with the old or new building. So, this means we need to contact them to get a copy of proposed engineering plans and to make sure that neighbors are also notified to approve or oppose the designs. Apparently on July 1st there was a proposed demolition requested and can not happen unless a new approved structure is submitted first.
Okay everyone, we DO NOT want our historic neighborhoods demolished and slowly replaced with inferior quality modernistic junk like that around the corner that sticks out like a sore thumb and have no place in a 19th century protected block.
A little history on the house:
307 N 21st Street, Richmond, VA 23223
Execution of a certain deed of trust-original principal amount: $147,600
Borrower: Jefferson Wells
Foreclosure date: November 3, 2011 at 2:15 p.m.
Trustee: ALG Trustee
Sold 6/25/2013 $25,000
MLS # 400028716971 June 2014 (off market)
Permit #D13101101 Details applied 10/11/2013 killed 3/25/2014 per contractor
Permit #D14062501 Details applied 6/25/2014 by Frederick Pryor of Pryor Hauling – demolition leaving foundation.
Catherine Easterling of the C.A.R. permit pending 7/1/2014 – The Commission Of Architectural Review Has Approve D The Demolition Of This Building With The Understanding That The Applicant Will Apply For A Building Permit To Construct The Replacement Dwelling Approved By The Commission.
This house across the street gives an idea of how a new infill should “fit in” as a replacement.
/2013/10/01/new-house-for-21st-street_29217/
The replacement will pretty much match the existing building, except it will have hardiplank in place of wood siding. The only major change to the exterior will be that the porch on the north elevation will be “enclosed” but CAR is asking “an open or enclosed side porch that references the existing building’s porch must be incorporated into the design of the new structure.”
Eric, I really hate to see this torn down, but at least it’s only going to be replaced with a matching single family building. It won’t be a modern looking ugly thing, unless you think hardiplank is ugly. And CAR is making him reuse some things like cornice details.
crd, hardiplank looks fine to me if installed properly. The back of our house is covered entirely in it in the original width and bead style so works and the house across the street at 406, is covered entirely in it and no one can tell the difference.
I am glad that the design will replicate almost entirely the original 1895 style house and not be a horrid modern disaster covered in corrugated metal and fake planks that seems to be the current trend. I just don’t get the “industrial” thing fitting in with Victorian, Italianate, and Georgian architecture?
I am sure the old house could be restored but it will be a lot of money. Even if the foundation is sturdy as stated, the entire house is on a tilt and over the years people have altered the siding to fix the “visual” and warping to compensate meaning the entire exterior would need stripped and redone once leveled.
The house looks great BUT… what happened to the 18 x 8 double side porch as seen in this picture? It was on the approved engineering plans but there is some weird looking panel where it should be?