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
Richmond on the James AKA Dock Street
02/04/2014 9:56 AM by John M
Richmond on the James AKA Dock Street is a proposed 3 building mixed-use development at 3011 Dock Street with restaurant, retail, and office space.
The west building would be the highest at 133 feet, with the east building 30 feet lower. The central building would have 11 above-grade floors.
We’ll still be able to see the river through the windows if they leave the blinds open. Not sure what all the fuss is about…
Why dont we just pave over Belle Isle while we are at it. If we dont really care about the green corridor the James provides.
I haven’t seen a mention of the Virginia Capital Trail in the documents. This is not the Echo Harbour proposed development, but just as obnoxious. Protect the viewshed.
Now I’m reading where the City of Richmond Planning Department folks are insisting the Virginia Capital Trail needs to be added to the plan. This proposal has been long-awaited.
Why don’t we just complain about every single proposal from any developer who ever steps foot within a mile of Church Hill…..oh wait….
Not many cities our size have a natural greenway running through them. It is one of the strengths of our city. And one of our shared resources. If you want to live in a river highrise, there are lots of other cities that already offer this.
Love it or hate it, this current design is a direct result of how the Church Hill Association handled the previous Echo Harbor plan. Also, if you click through the application pdfs linked above, you can see how the Capital Trail goes outside most of the property boundary but along the river on a dock. You can also see the start of this dock at Great Shiplock Park.
It’s time to get serious about buying this property. Other cities would die to have this glorious open space, and we don’t have to tear down anything. Think boardwalk, skating, bikes for rent, kayaks, docks for the floating restaurants, or soccer fields, ice cream stands…
I grew up in Church Hill and I still love the community. What this proposed project lacks is sensitivity to its location. The three proposed towers range in heights of 105 to 144 feet above sea level (where the top of Libby Hill Park is about 145 feet above sea level). The hard-edged, intensive commercial development doesn’t reflect the open green space next door at The Great Shiplock Park or the stories of slavery and the Civil War that occurred here on the banks of the James River. The Tobacco Row buildings on Cary Street are shorter and reflect both these stories and some very hard lessons our country learned from them. As a city planner (currently practicing in California), I recommend that this project should be denied for its poor design and inconsistency with Richmond’s Downtown Master Plan and the Riverfront Plan.
This proposal is perfectly in step with the surrounding architecture, both in scale and building style.
If the people of Church shill were not so myopic, they would know that Chaple island will be the site of green space, althletic fields and boardwalk (in addition to the boardwalk proposd here and at Rockets Landing). Not one single person wants to cross route 5 to hang out on an empty, grassy lot. Public spaces require public. Density adjacent to open space is the winning combination for a good urban (or suburban or rural) park.
Just as a thought exercise because I’m curious to hear the answers…
Imagine you were on city council and could somehow nix up to two of the items below and make them go away forever and not be brought up again. Which would you choose among:
1.) Pear Street
2.) Echo Harbor
3.) Ballpark in Shockoe
4.) Methadone clinic on Franklin
I… like it…
Looks pretty reasonable (not great) – but like a decent continuation of what’s there now. It’s easy to imagine all kinds of other things in the area, yet who’s going to pay for the the reclamation of those seriously contaminated old industrial areas by the river (not the CH neighborghood assoc. for sure)? The way it is now may be fine for the very few folks who have houses right on Libby Park and want nothing but no change. I, as a walker, would prefer more development and more connections & would trails to Rocketts as well as Fulton, both of which are presently almost completely cut off from Church Hill and Shockhoe (other than by car).
I hope this project moves forward. The residential density is much needed in Richmond and will help us improve public transit, walkability, and sustainability. The buildings will help to provide an urban context to Shiplock park and make it safer. I think the buildings will not harm the viewshed and will improve their area dramatically. I wish even those opposed to the project would have the courage to acknowledge some of its many positive effects.
This isn’t residential. It’s office.
@9–other cities would die for this open space? really? this much open space? we have three/four ISLANDS of open space. this land needs to be developed for the betterment of the ENTIRE city to help reach fulfilling, long-term goals as #15 states.
@16–and yes, although not residential, it will help attract more people to live in and enjoy the city
There is no way to successfully oppose this other than someone offering the owner market rate for the land and then giving it to the City (or a park foundation) for use as part of the river park system. Or get the City to pay for it. Too bad most of the view people oppose City proposals to generate revenue so something like that would even be possible.
It is my understanding that the request has changed from residential to office because the regulations for public safety in a residential building made its development too costly. The road height would have had to be raised for many blocks and a escape flyover road over the train tracks would have had to be built. The developers themselves said in a public meeting that they could not make money at the height the planning commission proposed. Now they are back with another high rise proposal on the same unsafe site. There are pictures of this site and Dock Street under at least eight feet of water. Now it will just be office workers in an unsafe building not residents. Have a look up and down the river, no other office buildings are so close. There is a reason for this. As an engineer who looked at the last plans said “Mother nature always wins.” Flooding leads all natural disasters in deaths. FEMA recommends that “Where possible, prevent building and development on flood-prone
lands. Use land along rivers for parks or ecological reserves.” Why is the city turning over an easement they have on this property which can not be built on to allow and utiimately unsafe building to be built.
Short Pump East….It’s better for all of us citizens. Fall in lock step and praise our overseers and there collective vision for the betterment of our community. Its for the greater good.
While I am at it here I’ll ask a question. During the time they converted the old Reynolds Aluminum – Alcoa Foil Plants on Byrd Street into The Locks and White Byrd apartments, the corner building at 10th and Byrd was up for grabs as one of the last prime spots to build a High Rise. Apparently someone was interested according to newspaper articles of the time but, believe that project ended up being the new Gateway Plaza? Now that the apartments that are “attached” to the old building are occupied, how could they sell the lot for such construction? Why didn’t they push that lot first and then renovate around it? Now it will be noisy, dirty, dangerous, and almost impossible to do the way things are so is it a missed opportunity and we are stuck looking at a ugly and empty building for who knows how long? Who dropped the ball on that one?
And yes, something should be done with the old and abandoned Belle Island.