RECENT COMMENTS
Council to consider 23rd Street SUP, Pear Street, and Shockoe Development Agreement
Among the 60+ items on the agenda for the TUESDAY, May 27 meeting of City Council, three are of particularly local interest: an SUP on 23rd Street, the Pear Street SUP, and the Shockoe Development plan.
Ord. No. 2014-106 (Patron: Mayor Jones, By Request) – To authorize the special use of the property known as 404 North 23rd Street for the purposes of office use and one single-family dwelling unit, upon certain terms and conditions.
— ∮∮∮ —
Ord. No. 2014-71 (Patron: Mayor Jones, By Request) -To close to public use and travel, a portion of right-of-way known as East Cary Street, located in the block bounded by Pear Street, East Main Street, Peach Street and East Dock Street, and consisting of 1,973± square feet, upon certain terms and conditions.
— ∮∮∮ —
Ord. No. 2014-78 (Patron: Mayor Jones, By Request) – To authorize the special use of the properties known as 2801 East Main Street, a portion of 2823 East Main Street, and a portion of East Cary Street for the purpose of permitting a multifamily dwelling with up to 65 dwelling units and principal uses permitted in the B-5 district, upon certain terms and conditions. (As Amended)
— ∮∮∮ —
Ord. No. 2014-108 (Patron: Mayor Jones) – To authorize the Chief Administrative Officer, for and on behalf of the City of Richmond, to enter into the Shockoe Development Cooperation Agreement between the City of Richmond and the Economic Development Authority of the City of Richmond for the purpose of providing for the development of a proposed project in the Shockoe Bottom area of the city.
Yes, No, No, No.
I second that, KatManDo
Same, thanks Kat!
For all the crying about how “the Pear Street development needs to be this high to be viable”, one would think the developer had paid a small fortune for that parcel. Unless I’m mistaken this cost them $130K and they’ve been content to sit on it for over 10 years.
This project is pure greed and should be sent packing by council. The developer is attempting to take a portion of a public good (the river views) and monopolize it for their own profit.
Spot on, Alex.
Write to Council and show up on Tuesday.
Alex,
Thank you – you have hit the nail right on the head !
If you have not done so would you ( and all those who agree with you) please
1) Sign our petition at http://www.180rva.com
2) Come to City Hall tomorrow,Tuesday, at 5.30pm ( yes, that early as it will be packed !) to support the 180RVA group as we present our case.
Again, many thanks
Jon, yes, you are correct. Thank you for the advanced warning
Per information from Cynthia Newbille and Charles Samuels, the Pear St high rise SUP is NO LONGER on the city council agenda tonight 5/27/14
So Pear Street was continued to June 9? Any confirmation? Anyone have any idea WHY? Thanks!
@10 – this is how council operates when more back room dealing needs to happen. Expect the topic to keep getting continued until nobody cares one way or the other anymore and it will finally be put to a vote if past experience is a guide.
180rva’s shameful arch-NIMBY effort is creating a mono-culture of one type of housing project in Shockoe, all over a view which history is about as academic as an episode of Drunk History. You 180rva folks are actively harming the City.
@12 – As indicated by my earlier post, I find this to be a monumentally ugly building and an example of the worst kind of greedy developing but I do agree with the point that a constant NIMBY attitude is giving this neighborhood a black eye. In a neighborhood with such a focus on keeping historical details, we’ve got blocks cluttered with cheesy looking “No” signs everywhere.
If we keep up the rabid “No-It-All” attitude, don’t be surprised when we get some combination of a.) good stuff passing us by in favor of more grateful neighborhoods and/or b.) developers deciding they don’t want to hear the bullshit and just forcing worse stuff through.
I think we as a community need to be realistic that we likely only get so many vetoes. Personally I think this one is worthy but I agree with your sentiments otherwise.
@13 Alex, someone on another thread here, some months ago, reminded us that we have supported a number of worthwhile projects.
The grocery store and CVS at 25th and Main, the short line of shops just west of that, all new and welcomed, we preserved the Superior Building and Pohlig Box building, and all the condos at 25th and Franklin on both sides of the street are all examples of in-fill that we have supported.
That includes the condos on the northeast corner of 25th and Franklin, Charity Square, which were added some years ago to what had been a vacant lot for years. Even older condo developments include the old Bellevue School at 22nd and Broad and the Belfry at 26th and Broad, which were done in the early 1980’s (yes I was here then) and Nolde condos on the other side of Broad at 26th, somewhat more recently.
All of those were studied by the neighbors, maybe some changes were made, but they happened without a whole lot of resistance.
There is an infill house on short 30th Street that got a lot of study, but it’s there, and it fits in. You may not have been here, but I was and I remember the resistance, it went onto a vacant lot that people had had years to buy and did not, and now the house is there and fits in just fine, was even on the House Tour a number of years ago.
I’m really tired of people who are saying we’re a NIMBY “no to everything” neighborhood. I’d like to think that my neighbors are sensitive to development that is not only ugly but doesn’t fit the surrounding area.
An extremely tall high rise condo that destroys the view is inappropriate, as well as not in keeping with the surrounding buildings, plus it proposes to close a public street (Cary St.) just to suit the development.
Also inappropriate is a ball park that is shoe horned in and now appears to need to tear down historic structures on East Franklin Street (DPV headquarters) while disrespecting the slavery history.That is not responsible development. Plus, the whole financial thing around the ballpark is questionable as well as probably illegal.
The high rise condo is greedy and ugly, totally more massive than it’s neighbors, as well as stealing the view.
But I’d be willing to bet that the coming 25th Street deal with pop-ups will be totally supported and not resisted by neighbors.
I mean, come on, be sensible instead of saying ‘we’re all NIMBY.’ I’m sick of that moniker. We do not have a rabid “No to it all” attitude, as you seem to think.
But did you support the King’s Retreat, oh reasonable crd? Who is the tyrant now???
Still a newbie, but it seems CHA lost a good deal of respect and interest (definitely mine) with the coffee shop war they put on, There was a lot of energy wasted that could have been applied to Pear St. The rendition of Pear St,that I had seen a year ago that was so “terrible” was so much better than what is proposed today, that was NIMBY, no we want a park, well you do not win them all. Bet it would be nice to see the old proposal agin, a lot easier to work with, but they needed a variance and they were shown how resolute CHA was. They do not need the variance now, just a few well placed dollars. Picking your battles makes sense, So Buffy’s cannot serve beer, wow, what a huge win for the community. I agree, the Pear St project is wrong for the location, both height and precedent.
I really want to see the “No”s to the ball parks alternate plan. I have been waiting for these ultra intelligent people to solve the drainage issues and replace the ugly surface lots with some wonderful project that can be approved and financed, so far I all I hear is “NO Ballpark” we want our foul smelling vacant lots, other wise parking and traffic maybe a problem, so CRD, the NIMBY label is what sticks, no matter how much good has been done,( I do see and appreciate it).