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
The James at River Bend set to go before Planning
03/26/2014 9:32 AM by John M
The RTD is reporting that The James at River Bend project AKA Pear Street is heating up:
Two pieces of legislation to allow the development to move forward — a special-use permit and the closure of a portion of right of way — were introduced at Monday’s City Council meeting. The proposal is scheduled to go to the Planning Commission on April 21.
PREVIOUSLY: all posts tagged ‘Pear Street Project’
A few comments on the proposed Pear Street Development.
I read with interest the article in today’s Times Dispatch regarding the proposed Pear Street Development (yes, the name has changed several times, but it is still more of the same).
As Church Hill residents, we should all be alarmed, annoyed, but not surprised by the proposal. There are a few facts, which are most likely inconvenient for the developer, which help explain his duplicitous actions.
The Church Hill Association has met with him since the early phases of development to express our support for sensible development, but our concern that Mr. White’s proposal would be outsized, and negatively impact our community.
Despite his claims that visual impact would be minimal, it simply isn’t so, and the excessive height and mass of the building (rising nearly as tall as the Lucky Strike stack, but being much wider than it) will deprive us of a significant portion of the view of the bend of the James River. The building is constructed, so that the portion we will see from Libby Hill Park overlook will be the windowless, industrial back of the building, and will rise above our line of sight. It literally turns its back on the neighborhood.
Mr. White has had developed a misleading series of images (with viewpoint behind the Soldiers and Sailors monument) to try to attempt to create an impression that the visual impact will be less than it will be. If he was being honest, why would he have a false series of images produced?
Mr. White claims that the building is in keeping with the surrounding neighborhood. It is not. All of Tobacco Row is approximately 5 stories high. His proposed building will tower over them. He claims that he can not profitably build a lower rise building. Why is it that the Tobacco Row developers were able to do a much more expensive form of construction (renovating 100 year old industrial spaces into dwellings) and do so within the confines of the height limit, and he can not?
The construction of the Pear Street Building will result in a net loss of tax revenue to the city. The community of Church Hill (especially the Old and Historic portion that will see the greatest impact from this venture) has had a dramatic increase in value over the past decade. Destruction of the viewshed will slow the rise in home value, may reverse it, and will offset any gains in real estate tax revenue garnered from the new building.
For all of us in Church Hill, allowing construction of the Pear Street building as currently proposed, will be to trade a valuable public resource, the view from one of Richmond’s oldest parks, the view that named our city, in order to benefit a few. To do so is a fool’s choice, does nothing to benefit our neighborhood, and is solely for the enrichment of a developer who refuses to develop within the confines of sensible development.
If you are a thoughtful resident of our community, the only sensible response to the Pear Street proposal is alarm and disapproval. Please let our representatives know that we are united in opposition to it.
Geoffrey Cooper, MD,
President, Church Hill Association.
To answer the question on how the rest of the buildings were able to be developed. It is called historic tax credits. They are not available for new buildings and some are not available unless they are revenue generating properties (i.e. apartments, office, etc.).
The city needs new development (except in your back yard right?). It cannot generate acceptable levels of new revenue on assessment increases alone unless it raises the tax rate and then that would drive prices down.
As for the windows, I would have thought you would not want someone looking down on you and what you are doing in your home. Plus the picture above does seem to have a quite a few windows on that side of the development, just not balconies. Do you want balconies on that side?
The Church Hill seems to be opposed to everything unless it is done exactly as they want. What ever happened to compromise? Has the developer made any changes from their original proposal to address any concerns? Has the CHA backed off any of their concerns or have they actually added new concerns as the process has continued? Seems as if the CHA is not willing to ever compromise and they just want more and more.
Libby Hill Park is one of the best things in Church Hill and it will be ruined, plain and simple, if this building is built. It’s basically stealing the view that we all can enjoy at the park by a handful of residents of this new building. Not acceptable – this is a clear case of the good of the whole community trumping one developer’s profits. Come on people!
Steven H, the picture above is from the eastern end of the park, way far east and south, it is not what you would see if you were standing at the monument at 29th Street. Do you live in Church Hill? Just curious.
Why is it the city’s responsibility to consider if he can profit from a lower development? He bought the land knowing the lower development standard was in place. So he is the one who made the mistake.
Add this to some of the other developments approved and under consideration and you have a pattern of development that will block out the river views shared and appreciated by many and give them just to the few who live in the new developments.
Oh, and this looks more like the old urban hirise projects of yesteryear than it does luxury apartments.
I respectfully disagree with Dr. Cooper’s comments.
With respect to the view, I believe the bend is vital and must be preserved for all to enjoy. I do not believe this proposal blocks the view of the bend as it is located sufficiently west.
From a revenue perspective, it will be a net gain to the city. Each unit will pay taxes, revenue which does not exist right now. To say homes in Church Hill will lose value because of the highly questionable loss of viewshed (from a park, not from the overwhelming majority of homes) is dubious to say the least.
My unsolicited advice to the CHA: Pick your battles very, very carefully. Make your peace with this proposed structure (and yeah, it ain’t much to look at) and keep your powder dry for the proposed Dock Street development. That is the one that needs to be fought tooth and nail.
Yes, I do live in Church Hill. Not sure what that has to do with it. Have we become an exclusive community now where no outsiders are allowed to comment? Last I checked we were part of the City fo Richmond for better or worse.
I was just commenting on the windows shown in this view. Is there another view from the park where it shows a blank wall with no windows?
Why didn’t the Church Hill Association start a movement for some sort of view protection overlay for the view area when that Echo Harbor thing was first rolling years ago? Quit leading from behind, CHA! Developers are going to keep proposing things you hate for so long as you don’t have clear, certain expectations established.
Holy Cow! That is one UGLY building! Who is the architect on this project?
Sure, Next Friend, CHA could have done that, but the developers would have just found loopholes, changed some legislation, and bought off a few electeds to get what they want……..happens every time.
Geoff,
With all your effort in writing that super long comment, I would have thought you would have spent more time putting more accuracy within your writing, especially for being the President of the Church Hill Association.
First, when looking at Libby Hill, the bend is to the left, this building is clearly to the right. So your comment stating that the building will “deprive us of a significant portion of the view of the bend of the James River” is merely untrue.
Second, Church Hill is in the upswing of the market. I doubt this one building could potentially “reverse” the market, especially since its adding numerous units that did not previously exits. I would love to see some sort or statistical data even remotely supporting this.
I would expect more from the CHA President and a MD. I guess this is why the CHA is viewed at the way it currently is…..
And just for the record, I don’t support the new building. I think it’s quite ugly and doesn’t “fit” the area well. I hope that the upward trend of Church Hill isn’t dependent on the placement of this one building. If so, I think Church Hill has a lot more to worry about………!
I’m with the Godfather on this one.
#7 Agree, what an eye sore.
SO, if I understand proponents of this venture correctly, we should let any ugly building be built anywhere just so we can get tax revenue from it?
Several years ago, the city commissioned a study of how to best market itself. The result was that they should feature the river. Well, but walling it off with office and apartment buildings, they will effectively be doing the opposite.
Saying no to these eyesores is not the same as saying no to growth. Instead, it is just redirecting growth in different areas. There are still plenty of urban spaces that could be rehabbed.
Regarding # 15:
Scott,
1. It does impact the view of the bend of the river. The view is not simply the angle where the river bends, but the span of the river upstream and downstream from the immediate bend. Meet me out there on evening and take a look and I am sure you will agree.
2. This building is a gateway building that will lead to other tall buildings that will totally obstruct the view of the river except where the cement towers now stand (slated for demolition in 2015) on property owned by the City of Richmond
3. Such building will diminish the value of neighboring homes, especially those with views of the river (do you think that an obstructed view is more valuable than an unobstructed one?)
4. Apologies for the incompleteness of my writings. I quickly dashed it off before seeing patients this morning because I thought it was important to comment upon.
5. I don’t know whether to take your comments about the state of CHA as an compliment or a criticism. Hope you will join us on our community wide infrastructure walk on April 5. Help us survey and improve the neighborhood!
Jeff
Absolutely horrendous building. I am all for sensible development, but this building looks like it belongs at Daytona Beach back in 1985.
I believe Mr. Coopers statement that this building is a gateway building is accurate. There is another parcel next to Rocketts View Apartments that is undeveloped, as is a wide swath from there to Rocketts Landing. Coupled with the proposed buildings down by Great Shiplock Park, the future possibility of a canyon-like wall of high-rise apartments along the river is very real. This phenomenon is common in large cities, where river views command high prices. Chicago and Manhattan are prime examples. Also look at the massive shadow created by the high rise Vista on the James near the 14th St Bridge.
To simply scale down the heights of the buildings would leave the views intact for all, and preserve one of the best things about Church Hill-those epic views from Libby Hill and Chimborazo.
Development? Yes. But with an acknowledgement to our past and present and foresight for the future. Once these tall buildings are built, they won’t go away and will irrevocably alter a very basic and important part of the fabric of Richmond.
Holy cow, that is seriously ugly. Are you sure that’s the right image for this project? Can’t imagine anyone thinking that monstrosity belongs in Church Hill, of all places.
Let’s think like city government/council for a moment. 32 units, 9 regular floors, 4 penthouse floors, visibly between two “towers”. It seems like the regular floors will be three per floor with 4 or 5 (1unit/floor?) penthouses. Now, based on the pricing we’ve seen:
“The units would be priced from the mid-$400,000s to $1,300,000 & range in size from 1,600 to 3,300 square feet. ”
With conservative numbers:
(400,000*27/100*1.2), that’s $113,400 per year in new real estate taxes for the regular floors and $60,000 per year for the penthouses in real estate taxes (1,000,000*5/100*1.2.) $173,400 a year is nothing to scoff at and that is just based on real estate tax, add another $4,608 a year in meals tax (200month*32*.06*12) and a great water/gas customer (50*32*12=$19,200++) and it looks even better. You are approaching 200k a year of new revenue for the city with very conservative numbers from a space that yields them 9k a year at the moment.
I personally think it is too tall and should be cut down a few stories but I figured I’d do the math to figure what was at stake.
My formula said 400k in my comment for the regular condos but I did my math in the comment on 350k, my bad. Looking at Riverside on the James (on Brown’s Island near Pipeline) assessment values of 350k should be right but might be a little high, the proposed condos are bigger and seemingly higher end so 350k assessment seems reasonable.
That building just doesn’t fit in. Looks like it belongs next to 2000 Riverside Dr.
I am full support of this project. I believe the building will improve the view, improve the neighborhood’s walkability, and help contribute to the sustainable urbanism and transit in Richmond. According to basic urban theory, this building should also increase the safety of nearby Great Shiplock Park and the area at large.
I also believe the building will be an attractive addition to the East End, though these renderings might not do the best job of communicating that. The vertical punctuation of the view will add some intrigue and relate to the neighboring Luck Strike smokestack. It does not block the “view that named Richmond” or the Downtown skyline but sits between them. Many of the same designers who worked on the VMFA McGlothlin Wing are involved in this project. What a great change that was for this city. I’m ready for a second helping.
I’m not opposed to a new apartment building there. I think the area to the right of the river bend should be developed. However, I think this design is extremely unattractive.
I don’t have a problem with this land being developed but the building is hideous. It looks dated and hasn’t even been built! If the developer is looking for sales in the $1.0+ mil range, this building design won’t do it. Buyers in this price range place a high value on aesthetics and unfortunately, this doesn’t make the cut.
#29, Don, I know you are enthused about Richmond architecture. Our objection to the proposed building has to do with height and mass. Please come over from Jackson Ward and visit the overlook at Libby Hill Park so you can visualize for yourself how destructive this building will be to our community. We certainly appreciate new and innovative architecture, our objection to this project has to do with its height and mass at this location. If only the developer had used this architect to create a signature building that did not rob the public view, we would not have objections! Please visit our neighborhood and see for yourself!
#29: “Many of the same designers who worked on the VMFA McGlothlin Wing are involved in this project” – this bit of info makes me even more disappointed with the building’s aesthetic design, or lack thereof. Like others have mentioned, and as a Church Hill resident myself, I fully support the vacant land being developed (build away, for heaven’s sake!), but I also appreciate the full exhilarating view from Libby Hill, not just the bend. The overlook is free and available to all. Why can’t the future occupants of the building walk to Libby Hill to appreciate the scenic beauty, just like everyone else?