RECENT COMMENTS
180RVA leading fight against Pear Street, Dock Street developments
The group formerly known as Libby Hill View Watch has rebranded as 180RVA and come out swinging. Their first tweet from Sunday promises a war, and a press release from yesterday outlines the fight against Richmond on the James AKA Dock Street and The James at River Bend AKA Pear Street.
— ∮∮∮ —
#RVA, there's a war coming. Ready to fight? Visit http://t.co/uHOiK5pyqQ to arm yourself.
— 180RVA (@180RVA) April 14, 2014
— ∮∮∮ —
River View Advocates, Scenic Virginia, and Preservation Virginia
PRESS RELEASE
For Immediate Release: April 15, 2014Contacts:
Eugenia Anderson-Ellis, River View Advocates:
(804) 306-9427 (c)
Leighton Powell, Executive Director, Scenic Virginia:
(804) 363-9453 (c)
Geoffrey Cooper, President, Church Hill Association:
(804) 399-5589 (c)
Elizabeth Kostelny, Executive Director, Preservation Virginia:
(804) 347-6373(c)Illustrations:
http://180rva.com/Photos
Supporting documents:
http://180rva.com/PlanningCorrespondenceGroup Urges Rejection of Proposed High-Rise, Releases Illustrations of Building’s Impact and Offers Alternative Approach
Richmond, Va. In a letter submitted to the city, a group of city residents organized under the banner of River View Advocates is urging Richmond’s Planning Commission and City Council to reject the special use permit requested by developers David White and Louis Salomonsky for a 16-story high-rise at the end of Tobacco Row and in front of Libby Hill Park. The developers call their project “The James at River’s Bend.”
“Our review indicates that this project doesn’t conform to the city’s Downtown Master Plan, surrounding zoning, or the requirements for approval of a Special Use Permit,” said attorney Bill Dinkin. “The City staff’s initial response to the project registered significant concerns and the failure to comply with the Downtown Plan as reasons not to recommend approval, and we agree.”
Specifically, the August 20, 2013 memo from the City Planning staff stated:
The proposed building neither respects nor reinforces the scale and character of the adjacent buildings. The proposed height of the building is considerably taller than
buildings within the vicinity. Buildings within the Urban Center Character Area [are] generally not higher than five stories….The proposed building stands in stark contrast to the nearby historic structures. Maintaining the historical character of the area is particularly important for the subject property. . .
Given the proposal’s inconsistencies with the Downtown Plan, Staff would not recommend approval of the project in its current form.
The Richmond City Council adopted the Downtown Plan after extensive public participation from 800+ city residents, city staff, and nationally recognized consulting firms. It was followed by the Richmond Riverfront Plan, which echoed the public interest in preserving views of the river, improving public access to the river, and enhancing parkland along the river. The Downtown Plan includes the Pear Street parcel in the Urban Center Character
Area with heights generally not higher than five stories. The group’s rebuttal letter addresses in detail why the proposed project does not conform to the Downtown Plan and zoning ordinance, or meet the requirements for the granting of a special use permit.“This is everyone’s view, not one that should be appropriated by a few,” said Eugenia Anderson-Ellis of the River View Advocates. “The 180° panorama offered at Libby Hill Park is much more than the one that resulted in the naming of our city; it is a panorama of our complex history. It is a place where, with appropriate interpretive signage, one could contemplate and visualize the entire voyage from slavery to freedom. Today the park is enjoyed not only by immediate neighbors but a wide diversity of the city’s residents and tourists.”
“Where our most significant river views are concerned, we must proceed with great care,” said Leighton Powell, Executive Director of Scenic Virginia. “In 1851 the Richmond City Council purchased the land for Libby Hill Park specifically because of its scenic vistas, including The View That Named Richmond. A newspaper article at the time noted that City Council acquired the parcel because ‘it affords a commanding and picturesque view of the lower portion of the City, the river, the falls, [and] the railroad bridges.’ Richmond’s citizens cherish their river views. Our modern-day City Council listened to the public and responded by passing the Downtown Master Plan and Riverfront Plan, both of which recognize the value of Richmond’s historic, scenic resources .”
“Preservation Virginia named The View from Libby Hill to the 2012 Virginia’s Most Endangered List to raise awareness of the high stakes surrounding the potential loss of this important vista and the alternatives that would maintain its visibility,” said Elizabeth
Kostelny, Executive Director of Preservation Virginia. “Development in the area need not obscure the public’s access to this expansive view of the James River. Seeking alternatives would in fact be in keeping with the City’s plan to leverage the James River as a community asset and attraction.”
“Without a doubt, the high-rise would forever mar the historic and panoramic views from Libby Hill Park and disrupt the historic integrity of Tobacco Row within the Shockoe Valley and Tobacco Row Historic District,” said Anderson-Ellis. “The illustrations we commissioned demonstrate the inappropriateness of the proposed high-rise, which sticks out like a sore thumb and is likely to have a negative impact on our tourist economy.”
Illustrations produced by VCU planning students show the impact of the Pear Street proposal and the adjoining proposal along Dock Street (formerly known as Echo Harbor, and now called “Richmond on the James”) from various vantage points. The illustrations also offer an alternative building for the Pear Street site that would comply with the Downtown Master Plan and zoning, and a proposed park for the Dock Street site as recommended by the Downtown Master Plan.
“The Church Hill Association’s Zoning Committee and membership reviewed the Pear Street proposal, with the membership voting to oppose the project for the reasons enumerated above. We also fear approval of this proposal will set a precedent for granting special exceptions for similar high-rise structures on nearby parcels from 25th Street to Rockett’s Landing,” said Geoffrey Cooper, President of the Church Hill Association.
The group also cited the failure to study the combined traffic impacts of the Pear Street and Dock Street proposals in conjunction with build-out at Rocketts Landing, as well as other traffic entering from eastern Henrico into the constrained Main and Dock Street corridors, as reasons to reject the requested special use permit.
“The City has strong legal authority to deny the requested Special Use Permit, and should do so,” concluded Cooper.” Permitting this particular high-rise proposal to go forward would harm historic resources and the property values and tourism revenues that these resources generate .”
Additional official documents regarding both the Pear Street and Dock Street (old Echo Harbor site recently approved by city staff for three office buildings) are available at Richmond Department of Planning and Community Development FTP site.
I am not ready for war. War is bad.
In case you miss the link to the photos in the story – http://180rva.com/Photos
I’m sympathetic to this but really hope Dr. Cooper will avoid making this a CHA issue. The CHA should be trying to stay out of divisive matters like this. If CHA board members want to join up personally, that’s great but it would be good if they’d make it clear that they’re doing from a personal perspective, not as an agent of CHA.
Just my two cents but if we learned anything from the great Buzzy’s debacle, I’d hope it would be that CHA loses support when it gets into things that aren’t near unanimous support.
I agree with Alex 100%. It’s imperative that the effort not be affiliated with CHA. Just too much baggage over the years that will really turn people away from getting involved.
I think this issue is a no brainer – if you ever visit Libby Hill Park, it’s one of the best views of the river and city. So much history is right there, and the view just compliments the story. There are trolley and segway tours daily. I’ve met many folks who visit the site when passing through Richmond, just to take in the view. If the structure really is going to be as tall as the statue at Libby Hill Park, that building is just going to be atrocious!
A related SUP goes before Planning on Monday:
CHA is the wrong association to be named as an ally in the letter. War is an odd choice of sentiment for the activity. I hope the organizing parties are not named associates of past alleged transgressions. This effort deserves tactical professionalism if it is to be taken seriously. That said I appreciate the work that’s been done. Let’s hope all goes well and the view is protected.
I should be more explicit. I prefer the view with the building. I am in full support of the pear street development.
I’d like it if it didn’t look like a cartoon image and wasn’t so white.
Don, may I ask what about the view with the building you prefer? (not being negative or nasty – just asking a question).
Karen,
Fair question. I have a quick, two part answer.
1. While I love the view as it is, and while I can appreciate the clean horizon line it offers, I am never able to separate that from the fact that a large portion of what I’m looking at is the sprawl around Jeff Davis Highway. For me, this building will edit out a small portion of the view which I wasn’t that attached to while retaining the city view to the west and the historic river bend view to the east. I also think the building itself will look good. I really wish the developers and architects had sunk some money into better renderings and a nice model because I don’t think the current visuals communicate that effectively. I think the way it is structured will be flattering to the site. I also think this building will look great from street level in the Bottom.
2. One of my strongest beliefs is that our city, and all cities, should build densely. This promotes walkable and transit oriented communities and, in doing so, curtails our sprawl into the wilderness and countryside. I am unable to see buildings without thinking of their consequences on an urban scale. While I love the cityscape of Richmond deeply and frequently appreciate it, as is, for hours on end, I think buildings here are simply too low and planning is too sprawling. I guess seeing this building go up would be, to me, a symbol of Richmond’s commitment to environmental sustainability, intelligent planning, and lack of reliance on the past.
I hope that answered your question. I’m really glad you asked because I now realize that I don’t really know why, specifically, some people think the view will get worse. It seems a pretty minor player in whole panorama, to me. If anyone cares to write an answer, it would be much appreciated. Thank you.
Interesting to note that stories about the bike race(s) tout the very view that’s in jeopardy.
@ Alex, CHA is already involved. They agreed to fund this group over a year ago, specifically “to allocate up to $5k to a public awareness and educational fund specifically for the Libby Hill viewshed defense, to be paid out at the discretion of the board which will report back to the membership.” The motion also states: “…the board who, with input from the RVA group will incorporate these monies into an overall action plan.” According to this language CHA’s board agreed to be guided solely by the River View Advocates, now 180RVA. Interestingly, I believe this group is comprised largely of former CHA board members and at least three past CHA presidents and CHA’s current president.
If nothing else, the CHA really needs to work on cleaning up its image. The Captain Buzzys fight has left a lot of people angry and mistrustful of it and any other organization in our neighborhood. I am not sure how it does this, but…
How about if the conversation remains on point and not turn this into a CHA bashing.
It’s EVERYONE’s issue that cares about this City. The view is in jeopardy. Stir the CHA pot on a different thread.
Chpnfan
Jon Ondrak brought out a VERY real issue and couldn’t be more “on point”! If you can’t recognize the ramifications of what he has pointed out, then you need to do some serious studying on liability!
Hint, look up the words “jointly” and “severly”.
CHA’s involvement in this is highly pertinent!!!
Ghee, Ondrak, I’m glad to hear this group is comprised largely of former CHA board members and at least three past CHA presidents and CHA’s current president.
As past Presidents of CHA, I welcome your and Renmark’s time, involvement and all out support in the fight against Pear Street and the preservation of the vista from Church Hill, where you both live..
You are to be congratulated.
@14, I completely agree with you. Let’s keep the comments on point. It is absolutely EVERYONE’S view, and that is what is important here.
Oh Jean…
Save your direction to recognize, study and grab a dictionary. It’s not needed.
I have some quick questions for people against the development:
1. If the apartments were built, do you think you would go to the park less often?
2. Why do you think the view would be worse with the apartments?
3. If it wasn’t economically feasible to build, for example, a 6 story building on the lot, would you rather it stay as is or be built with the current plan?
4. Do you think the area would be safer, less safe, or the same if the building was built?
Please answer any or all of them and add any other specific insights you like. Thank you very much.
Richmond under values itself as a premier location for American history – American Indian to Colonial to the abomination of slavery to the Civil War and civil rights. As one who has recently relocated here to enjoy that history I see the James as the thread to it all. Much careful thought and consideration should be given to the vision for how this history and the river that winds thru it should be used to promote long term economic development, especially tourism in our city. This project does not represent that careful consideration and long term vision. I hope cool heads will prevail and the greater good for all Richmond folks will prevail.
1. No
2. You couldn’t see the river as well, but you could still see it. The buildings might be cool to look at just like people like to look at the city skyline from jefferson park.
3. The only real issue I have hear is I wish the design fitted that area a little better. The design does slightly look out of place. (from the drawings awayways)
4. It would probably be more safe with more people around.
1. If the apartments were built, do you think you would go to the park less often? No. But as a resident of the area, this view is permanently etched into my memory. The same is not true for many visiting the area. If a view were to be blocked, at least, the obstruction should be interesting and inspired. This building is neither…it’s ugly.
2. Why do you think the view would be worse with the apartments? It would create a harsh obstruction in an otherwise panoramic view. Industrial views or not, it’s where Richmond’s roots are.
3. If it was not economically feasible to build, for example, a 6 story building on the lot, would you rather it stay as is or be built with the current plan?
I would like the lot to be developed…development is good for the city. Don’t believe the hype that a smaller building would not be economically feasible. I have quite a bit of experience here and they are if done very well.
4. Do you think the area would be safer, less safe, or the same if the building was built?
The area is currently safe. I doubt constructing this building would have any material impact on crime rates in the area. If you are trying to imply the area struggles with crime now…please cite your sources.
Laura
Well said, well done.
More safe? I have never heard of any incidents whern they are proposing this development. Well, maybe just one where the guy drove into the river by Rockette’s landing.
I oppose the development. The view IS important.
I am surprised that no one has brought up the traffic issue. Right now, that area and the Williamsburg road intersection are awful!
The traffic is heavy and FAST – I have personally seen no less than three accidents on this stretch of road. Remember when Fas Mart (then Cam Cam) had a brick fence? They finally torn it down after it was knocked over by too many speeding cars.
It is nearly impossible to turn left off of Pear onto Main during the day, especially during rush hour. And this is without the added traffic from the proposed development.
The city wants the potential tax revenue without building the infrasturcture to support it, leaving that issue for teh future.
And it should not be the city’s concern if the developer cant make a profit with teh 6 story height restriction. If he couldnt make money, he shouldnt have bought it.
I’m curious as to how a 6-story building on the lot would not be economically feasible? Are they already having trouble attracting buyers/renters to that area? (genuine question)
@20 What’s with the safety question? Do YOU think there is a safety issue there? I’ll echo Laura @23 here, if you see safety as an issue, please cite sources. I’m pretty familiar with the area and do not see safety as a concern (other than the fact that there is no sidewalk, but I think you meant other types of safety issues such as crime).
I completely agree with the comments about traffic there. It’s already a nightmare, and adding any buildings at all won’t help the situation. When Tobacco Row built the low building, on the south side of Main facing Poe’s, way back in the 1990s, the planning commission asked for a traffic study and I’ve never heard of the results of that, all these years later.
@28 Aud…Occupancy levels and rents in Shockoe Bottom area are some of the highest in the metro area. There’s no challenge getting these places filled. That’s why developers continue to build here.
The city planning commission just voted in favor of Pear St. Everyone who cares about the entire view and wants to keep it for everyone needs to write all city council members before Monday.
@31 Will do.
Proposed High-Rise Sparks Debate In Richmond
http://www.wric.com/story/25303124/proposed-high-rise-sparks-debate-in-richmond
City planning commission gives nod to The James at River Bend
http://www.timesdispatch.com/local/city-of-richmond/city-planning-commission-gives-nod-to-the-james-at-river/article_5e847b2e-2614-5969-aeea-8e83d3e02ee0.html
How hard is it really to pay off 6 city officials? I’m guessing maybe a thousand bucks a piece. Maybe the people of Church Hill and libby hill park, as well as th CHA should take a different approach, compete with the bribes! Im sure we could pull together more than 6k, well if we really cared as much as we act like we do about the precious view…..
I am in total favour of the development on Pear St. and I will be certain to write all of the city council members. My reason in being in favour is because I believe in freedom, and these people have bought the land. Therefore, they have a right to build whatever they please, and it is going to be high-end condominiums (not apartments).
It would be refreshing to see a more modern looking building, and I hope there will be far more development along the river.
My suggestion to all of you who think you have a right to tell a person what they can and cannot do with their own land should make an offer to buy the land. I have read other post it should all be made into a park (do you have any business sense at all). The city cannot maintain the parks we already have, and a lot of you constantly scream we need better schools.
How can anyone claim this is not a great way to generate more revenue for the city? The entire bottom needs to be developed. It really makes no difference to me if the ball diamond is moving to the bottom. However, it would be grand to see many high-end apartments/condos along with another grocery store and hotel replacing the hideous parking lot we get to admire every time we drive by on badly paved roads.
It is progress, why not stop behaving like old Richmond aka CCV crowd and embrace change/progress in our city. Richmond has the potential of being a great city again, why continue trying to fight it.
A message being distributed by the opponents of the project:
@36 Ron, I’m utterly confused by your comment. I don’t think anyone here is arguing that the parcel should not be developed; in fact, many people here are highly in favor of it! The developer purchased the land knowing the B-5 zoning requirements (which prohibits high-rise buildings of this nature).