RECENT COMMENTS
180RVA organizing for Monday’s City Council meeting
180RVA is gearing up for Monday’s City Council meeting:
A call to all Richmonders and our neighbors who want to “Save the 180 view”
The threat to the Libby Hill viewshed is now even more real due to the vote by the Planning Commission on April 21st to forward it to City Council for their meeting on April 28th.
Please turn up at City Hall next Monday at 6.00pm to show solid support to stop the approval of the SUP for the 16 story condominium at 2801 E Main St.
We propose in its place a 5 story condominium with the same number of apartments which will complement the historic apartments along Tobacco Row.
Please wear some thing conspicuously red.
More details of this proposed 16 story massive skyscraperper can be found on the attached flyer and at http://180rva.com
Our facebook page is: https://www.facebook.com/180RVA
Please contribute to the debate – add your photos and comments
Please would you post your comments on the following two links.
Also, click LIKE and DISLIKE, as appropriate, on the comments that are there already.
1) http://www.styleweekly.com/richmond/proposed-high-rise-condos-offer-river-views-to-some-will-block-others/Content?oid=2058316
2) /2014/04/16/180rva-leading-fight-against-pear-street-dock-street-developments_33116/
Finally but crucially: our on-line petition is at:
http://www.change.org/petitions/richmond-city-council-we-urge-city-council-to-preserve-the-historic-panoramic-view-shed-of-the-james-river-from-libby-hill-park-do-not-permanently-scar-this-premier-view-by-approving-precedent-setting-skyscrapersThank you for following our argument – if this view is lost you may wake up and wonder “how could that be allowed, what were we thinking of ” – but by then it will be too late.
There is an alternative – it’s sensible compatible development, which is what we are demanding.
The River View Advocates
ATTACHED: /wp-content/uploads/2014/04/PEAR-ST-CONDOS-B-W-FLYER-5-FINAL.pdf
Agreed that the view is everyone’s, but it appears from another thread that this issue is continued to May 27.
Yes – the published agenda does now state that the Pear St “discussion and decision day” will now be May 27th and not this coming Monday.
This will be verified but for the moment that is the best information
I’m glad it was recommended for approval by the planning commission. I hope it makes it through. Great project.
I find this group’s name unwittingly apt: with 180• they have only half a perspective.
Are they hoping that we’ll all be on a long Memorial day vacation and not show up?
A neighbor looked up the letters of support for the high rise project to the Planning Commission. It’s public record. It should come as no surprise that many of those supporting the project are the same who are supporting the Shockoe stadium proposal. There is the Shockoe Partnership (David White on the board), Shockoe Bottom Neighborhood Assoc., Dutton and Assoc., Mark Merhige and Larry Shifflett (business partners). Various realtors and architects, and there are 6 restaurant owners: Arcadia, Aqua, Rosie Connolly’s Pub, Havana, River City Diner, Poe’s Pub. Residents of St. Andrews Lane, Hanover Ave. Grove Ave., Floyd Ave, Riverside Drive, but about one from Church Hill. About 10 of the letters were from people who worked at the same Long and Foster real estate office on Grove Ave. There is a surprisingly awful letter from Historic Richmond Foundation, though supposedly HRF neither supports nor opposes the project.
For years, when Echo Harbor was in play, we were told it was the “historic downriver view” that needed to be saved. Now it is the “panoramic” view.
Is the stadium also in this 180 degree view?
I think building tall buildings on the sides of the river is a horrible idea.
RVA is creating a “Cement Canyon”, where once a beautiful and historic river, ran through it for all the people.
RVA’s past bad economic decisions – apparently now “justify” – – even more bad decisions, in the present.
Really-RVA! OMG.
@Scott – I would be very interested in reading the letters you reference. Is there a link where it is available to the public?
Scott and edg
Yes, Please give a link for these letters. i tried looking them up but had no success. Thanks
A “Cement Canyon”? Really?
It is over 600 feet from the river
@Houdon Want to enlighten us?
about that @12
YES, a cement canyon!
To get an idea of how development should be done, go to Chicago, Washington, D.C., Boston or any major City in Europe (except London). Public acess is open to the rivers visually and physically.
The areas surrounding D.C. like Crystal City ( Virginia Maryland ) are good examples of cement canyons. No sun, no air. You wouldn’t even know there was a river running thru it. Central Park in New York has been blocked so much from getting sun it’s hard to maintain park greenery.
You are missing the point! Where did you come up with 600 feet? If these developers want to build, then they should be required to follow existing height restrictions.
From: “Lory P. – PDR Markham”
To: “Samuel – City Council Liaison Patterson”
Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2014 11:45:18 AM
Subject: RE: Monday’s Council agenda – Pear St now moved to May 27th
This item may be continued to May 12 instead of May 27. I will let you know once I have confirmation.
Thanks,
Lory
There is one way to solve all the problems so many of you seem to have with ‘ANY’ development on the river. Buy the d**n land if you buy up all the land surrounding church hill there will never be anymore worries of progress of this magnitude. It amazes me how people such as yourselves can whine so ‘LOUDLY’ when a developer is willing to spend millions of dollars on our city. It is the river and the last time I checked the river did not belong to any individual neighbourhood, but all of us.
The view of the river can belong to individuals, corporations, etc. if ‘BUY THE DARN LAND’ otherwise shut-up. I just wonder what some of you would do if all of a sudden the EPA (currently running on steroids)came to Richmond and told all of you to dispose of your existing windows, doors, have your houses inspected for lead paint, etc. In addition, correct all the problems at your own expense, and give you only sixty days to do it. If it is not done to their specifications you get another thirty days to bring it up to code, and if it were not up to code by then your house would be destroyed.
My idea seems quite dumb doesn’t it, but I’ll bet if it did happen you all would start screaming I have rights I own my house …who is the EPA to tell me exactly how to live in my ‘OWN’ house if I pay my ‘OWN’ utility bills.
The idea I had about the EPA seems just as appropriate as trying to tell these owners what to do with their own land. The h**l with your view if you buy the land you have a right to make another park the city is unable to maintain.
How many of you read the front page of the Richmond Times Dispatch a couple weeks ago explaining how desperate the city schools are for money. I guess none of the revenue created by all the influx of business would benefit our school system at all.
There is one thing (for the very few of you who really want the best for your city) and that is a great school system. There is nothing anywhere drawing families back to buying houses, building more businesses, opening more businesses than a great school system. How many more years are we in the city going to be the laughing stock of so many great cities with great schools?
Is this view so much more important than creating more of a tax base to support our schools?
If you 180 degrees people are successful in stopping every good development that isn’t exactly perfect (like pear street and the Shockoe ballpark), you will NEVER get anything you like more, because you will have shown that nothing can get done down here. I’m guess that’s your plan – that all of this land remains a fallow no man’s land so your exclusive Mayberry-upon-the-Hill remains quiet and remote. We’ve all got your number, TunnelVisionRVA.
KNIBB HIGH SCHOOL FOOTBALL RULES!
Ron
When the debate over weather or not to institute a State Lottery was on going , the big sell was that all proceeds would go to improving the school system. Since implementation of the Virginia State Lottery, it seems that the school system has gotten worse.
If, ” we in the City ” are the laughing stock of so many great cities, it is because of the way this City has been run for the last 30 or so years. Payoffs, bribs, deals struck behind closed doors with shady developers with even more shady financing.
Even YOU point out that the river belongs to all of us!
“It is the river and the last time I checked the river did not belong to any individual neighbourhood [sic], but all of us.” Thank you Ron, for proving our point. I don’t know of anyone who is against developing the land (build away, I say!). The developer purchased the land, which included zoning restrictions. After purchasing the land, he now states he can’t finance his project without the height? Sorry, Charlie.
I found the link! Click the “Public Response” under Attachments: https://richmondva.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=1717424&GUID=97D8763F-FB66-499D-B669-99A89EB35F0B
I echo Aud’s sentiments. The land was zoned for a smaller structure – we are no against developing the land, we are against a much larger, 16-floor structure. Why is that distinction so hard to understand? A 5-6 story structure, for most of us who want to protect the view, is fine. A giant high rise is not.
I, for one, am at a loss to understand why the developer would have a tough time “making the numbers work” with a smaller structure. Well executed projects in the area do very well for both rentals and sales. The $/sq ft value does not increase exponentially by adding more stories to a building (in the Richmond market).
It makes me wonder if there is something else in play here…is the developer trying to rub the collective Church Hill nose in something?
Build Pear St. in Oregon HIll or below the Virginia War Memorial why not or lets consider a 16 story condo along: Cherokee Drive, at Pony Pasture or River Road – OMG! Why Not?
Because James River Association, JROC, City Parks, Sierra, and civic associations have protected the banks, views and the River … but not in the East End.
Location, location, location… the East End of RVA vulnerable and exploitable. So let me see – the Stadium, Pear St., & Echo Harbor, where are all of these controversial building projects proposed? Bingo!
Don’t abuse the East End of the City to make up for all mistakes and errors of the past.
Aud
I agree with all you said except that this “parcel of land” was originally 4 seperate parcels. Mr. White had it surveyed and labeled two parcels. The Rockets View apts. ( a furniture factory ) was a give away by VHDA and Mr. White and his pals just happened to be available to snatch it up and turn it into apts.
The documents currently at the Planning Commission show that balconies overhang the property line, as well as encroaching on adjacent property. Some other questionable little tidbits are also revealed.
I don’t think anyone is against an appropriate size development. However, based on past less than above board conduct, these particular ” developers ” bear close scrutnity at every turn.
#26 Laura
You do know the developer Mr. David White intends to live in one of the top floor penthouses, don’t you?
@ Ray… I didn’t know that but a very nice penthouse on floor 5 or 6 could still command over a $1 mil sales price.
Rocketts Landing comes quickly to mind, Monument Square condos, etc….
It’s the river view, Laura, he wants the view.
That’s where the real money is, the floors with the best views. More floors in his building, more views and more money for him.
Screw the little people who enjoy the park…..
He needs the height in case they build Echo Harbor. I am guessing to have the kind of view he wants he needs to be a good bit taller. Which is probably why the lower units are now considerably smaller. They may not end up with the same kind of view as he thought they would have so they are now smaller and cheaper so they will sell. This is all about the penthouses.
For those of you who wish to review all the documents presented by the Planning Staff and by the Developer at the recent Planning Commission meeting on Apr 21st you can download them using this link.
https://richmondva.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=1717424&GUID=97D8763F-FB66-499D-B669-99A89EB35F0B&Options=&Search
I stand corrected – thank you, Jean!
Jean McDaniel – I appreciate your advocacy (in seriousness, not in jest). That said, none of the details of the development you describe are “less than above-board.” In fact, they are all above board and customary. Encroachments, lot consolidation – all of that is totally normal.
Frankly, this building would be cooler design if it were taller. The initial drawings with more stories gave it a lighter, soaring feel. If it’s ugly, it’s because of design by committee. Shorter you make him make it, uglier and cheaper-looking it will be.
Creative spin, Next Friend, (it’s ugly because it’s not high enough.)
At least you admit it’s ugly.
From: “Markham, Lory”
Sent: Monday, April 28, 2014 8:41:25 AM
Subject: RE: E. Main St Ordinances – continuation of both
According to the Agenda on the Clerk’s website both items related to the development at 2801 E. Main St. are to be continued this evening (http://eservices.ci.richmond.va.us/applications/clerkstracking/getPDFCouncil.asp?NO=417&TYPE=A).
I will let you know if things change at the informal meeting today.
Added by 180RVA: The agenda gives the continuation date as being the 27th May