RECENT COMMENTS
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
Contemporary design for M Street
12/16/2015 8:09 PM by John M
This as-yet-unbuilt house is slated for 3307 M Street (and listed at $450,000):
3307 M Street was created to introduce modern design to the historic and eclectic Church Hill neighborhood. Designed and built by Upward Builders and award winning 510 Architects, this home will be a true masterpiece worthy of the cover of a magazine. This modern home will feature clean and simple aesthetics with large, oversized windows, a floating staircase, and a chic double sided gas fireplace.
— ∮∮∮ —
3307 M Street
TAGGED: M Street
I love contemporary. I know others will freak the F out. I just wish…. wish… modern also included solar, water reclaim, hot water on demand.
@ Don’tmincewords – I am not usually a fan of modern, but that’s because it’s usually poorly executed. A lot of the details on a traditional house usually serve a purpose. Generally – a lot of trim/decorative work on more traditional houses serves to hide where different planes or materials intersect, disguising how uneven/unlevel/etc. most buildings actually are and keeping the weather out. I think there’s a tendency for builders and designers to.think they can build less expensively without a lot of traditional elements, but the craft and precision required to build a modern house and the maintenance and upkeep ultimately increase cost. It really has to be a carefully considered aesthetic decision rather than a poorly considered cost saving decision.
Couldn’t be happier to have this team working on a modern house right around the corner from our own little modern addition!
This is good modern.
I’m a little skeptical about that price tag in that block but hope it sells.
Why? Places like these should only be in new neighborhoods… and yet none of our new neighborhoods have modern designed houses… ok start with that before plopping down sore thumbs in historic neighborhoods.
This is one of the oldest remaining historic and architecturally significant neighborhoods in the country. Lots of work has been and continues to be done to retain this history, even with new construction. This doesn’t belong.
I like it, especially at that location. A house of similar scale and build quality to the best of the historic houses would be a nice addition the neighborhood vernacular.
#3. Totally. Agree. I have a new, “traditional” house in Church Hill that has uneven planes and numerous cost-cutting measures I discovered after move-in. I won’t even go into the buried construction supplies in the backyard. Execution is key at any price point.
Do you want to repeat the tacky look 70’s and 80’s all over again? There’s already too many places with a hodge-podge approach on design. The city shouldn’t even approve. It looks like the two houses on broad a 21st that stick out like a sore thumb. It looks like it’d fit well in the industrial areas but c’mon. Please stop this from happening. New construction should compliment The old, not clash.
I usually feel disappointed when new construction attempts to mimic bygone aesthetics. I will never understand the drive to sacrifice authenticity for consistent neighborhood design. That said, I hope Richmond will attract more fashionable architects to transform our bare lots as we grow. VCU’s planned contemporary arts building seems promising, but a lot of the new apartment complexes we’ve been stuck with lately reveal the same lack of imagination in modern technique that I cringe about in simulacra. Hopefully this house will not continue that disappointing trend, but only time will tell.
I don’t like it either, and agree with @10 about those two on Broad near 21st. However, this one is not in an historic district according to the city map I just looked at, so I don’t think there is anything that can be done. Church Hill North stops at 29th St., and this is east of that.
Carrington Row was “Modern” in 1818 when compared to St. Johns Church. Then the rows of ca. 1880 homes built along Franklin and Marshall were modern compared to Carrington and REALLY modern and very dense compared to like the Adam Craig house. Everything was modern at some point. What am I missing? People complain about new construction looking “fake old”, but then also about new construction looking “brand new”
That’s a hefty price tag for that neck of the woods. I don’t suspect many who are able to afford that ticket would want to live on M street.
I think the complaint is not that it is ‘modern’ per se, but rather that it is bland looking, will likely not age well (design-wise), and that for the price it doesn’t seem to include any type of ‘modern’ energy features, as another poster mentioned. To me the rendering just looks like public housing, not contemporary design. A well designed building will suit it’s environment no matter what style it might embody. From the rendering here I can’t say this project accomplishes that, but maybe it’s nice on the inside?
Finally somebody builds modern infill! While tho house is a fa r cry from what you find in Dwell Magazine, it is FAR better than the infill that is being built on Leigh, which didn’t receive any negative comments from those anti-modernist commenting on this place. I encourage anyone who thinks they hate modern design infill to visit Dwell Magazine’s site & take a look at what modern design can be if its done well. There have been numerous examples of modern infill built in historic districts all over the world with far higher standards than CAR & our Old & Historic districts. I’m convinced that when see what is possible we can bring good modern design until that fits & complements the neighborhood and you’ll wonder why you didn’t speak out & prevent CAR from allowing quasi-historic structures to pass muster.
@16 I’m not following you. This address is not in a city historic district, so CAR will have no say about it.
And CAR has allowed things like The Reserve condos down on 25th between Franklin and Main with their flying rooftops, and they surely are not ‘quasi-historic structures’ nor are the apartments/condos near 21st and Broad, which are big, blocky things.
There is a group of houses in the 2600 block of Floyd Ave that may have provided some inspiration for this project. In my opinion, they fit in well with the surrounding buildings and really spruce up the block.
Crd – sorry, I should have noted the address. I was mostly responding to people who were concerned about modern infill fitting in w/the neighborhood. I believe people took issue w/the look of the Reserve condos. I’ll try to be more clear if I post again.
$450,000 for 33rd and M Street? I know Church Hill is starting to turn the corner but, seriously?
@20…Maybe this property will defy the tried and tested real estate adage of location, location, location. Broad Street property valuations would jump by $200K. 🙂