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
CAR to consider eight-unit apartment building in Union Hill
09/16/2016 9:02 AM by John M
- 518 N. 25th Street – Install a 2/2 aluminum clad wood window in a restored opening on the facade.
- 2802 E. Franklin Street – Install a new window and door in a new opening.
- 824 N. 24th Street – Modify a window and door opening at the rear of the home and construct a deck at the rear.
- 2205 Venable Street – Enclose a 2nd story rear porch of a home which was constructed in 2009.
- 3003 E. Marshall Street – Rehabilitate an existing home to include replacing vinyl siding on the rear and side elevations with fiber cement siding, installing a new porch roof, and constructing an addition at the rear; and construct a garage at the rear of the property.
- 2230 Venable Street – Construct two new multifamily structures and rehabilitate an existing structure to include new windows. (BELOW)
- 2915 E. Marshall – Reconstruct garage.
- 512 N. 29th Street – Rehabilitate the existing home to include painting the structure and installing a new front door.
- 1907 E. Grace Street – Demolish an existing brick storage shed.
- 2107 Cedar Street – Rehabilitate an existing home to include new windows, doors, siding, and roof; removal of the existing single story addition; and construction of a two story addition and deck at the rear.
- 808 N. 21st Street – Construct an eight unit multifamily structure on a vacant lot. (ABOVE)
— ∮∮∮ —
2230 Venable Street
If Church Hill is ready for low income concentrated housing taking the place of Creighton and Fairfield, here is the city’s chance to do it all over again. DO NOT put an 8 unit building in the middle of single family homes, should be no more than a duplex on any parcel in an historic district (or any district where single family is most appropriate).
DerekW: the 8 unit building will be high-end, market rate apartments built on land that is zoned for an 8-unit building in a district (union hill) that is zoned for density (R-63). If you’re concerned about low income concentrated housing, it’s the 52-unit project on Venable you should be looking at.
Daniil,
It’s an 8 unit building with 10 bedrooms correct? including significant others, that accounts for 20 occupants. You have seven off street spots (not including the handicap spot), so how is the block going to cope with the additional vehicles?
#3: It’s 8 parking spaces total, one for each apartment. Plus the duplex I’m restoring next door has a ton of extra backyard space which can potentially handle any overflow. I plan to own both buildings for a long time. Out of 8 units, 6 are 1-bedroom. I don’t expect anywhere near 20 occupants. Most of our 1-bedroom units are rented by singles, rarely couples.
@Daniil – Like the design! I’m assuming that they are meant to look like an italianate rowhouse/doublehouse with a modern addition on top? Do the third floor units have roof decks/a terrace on the front?
Okay, to reiterate 10 bedrooms. Single people have a funny way of coupling up….it is sort of the way our species has perpetuated its existence. To say you are going to only rent to chronically single people isn’t going to cut it. Secondly, it’s great you are restoring the neighboring building, but passing off the parking on to it isn’t going to cut it either. Once that building is complete the tenants are going to want to park. You can’t rob Peter to pay Paul.
@1 and 3 – It’s right around the corner from an entire block of fourplexes (Venable and 20th, I think) and also near an eightplex on Carrington. (Now that I think about it, could they build something that looks similar to those…? Would be keeping with the style and density of the surrounding neighborhood)
As for parking concerns – aside from the issue of single people vs. couples, not every individual owns a car and lots of couples only have one. Also, excessive parking infrastructure is bad for the environment and the community – but it’s sort of a moot point as there are entire blocks of vacant or mostly vacant land nearby with plenty of on street parking. Seems like a nonissue
Waaaaa Parking, Waaaaa…. You people need to think of something else to complain about when you are trying to stand in the way of progress.
@1 – actually, let me correct my rephrase part of my previous comment: The proposed building IS ACROSS THE STREET from SEVERAL MULTIFAMILY HOMES. I mean no disrespect, but your suggestion that it would be inappropriate to build a multifamily building “in the middle of single family homes” is counterfactual, as there are probably more multifamily buildings or units on the block than single family.
Lee: appreciate your comments! The design is actually meant to be a 2-story rowhouse in the front and almost a separate, 3-story modern buidling in the back. It’s just a conceptual review with CAR so we’ll see what they say. There are full balconies in the back overlooking city skyline.
As for parking, It’s amazing how you can renovate a historic property that was vacant for 30 years and was on the City’s demo list and build high-quality housing on land that’s done nothing but attract trash and vagrants, a block from Mosby Court and people lose their minds if god-forbid someone may have to one day to park on the street.
#6 – I appreciate your concern for my tenants, but let me worry about that. Zoning requires 1 space per unit and I’ve yet to see a single developer provide more than that. As Lee said, parking is a non-issue on this block.
Yes, Terry we are having a conversation about parking because this can have an adverse effect on an area. If parking becomes a burden it will drive away single family home owners who are the stewards of their blocks. Give it a few years with only renters and our streets will look like areas of the Fan inhabited by VCU students. Is that progress?
@11
Mr. Kleyman, I don’t know you, but I appreciate you risking your capital to build your project. Anyone on here complaining about the scope of your project could have bought the property (assuming you didn’t get some super-secret special insider deal or something) and used it for their vision. People like @12 and @1 who want to second guess you didn’t bother.
You stepped forward to do your vision and you should be given every consideration in doing so. Assuming your vision for the property does not require any zoning variances, do your will. Those who own nearby properties will be thankful for the additional investment in the community which should improve both their property values and the city’s tax revenues over time.
Danil
Having lived in this block over 13 years and owning investment/residential property in the 800 block I can honestly speak as an advocate for community improvement from investor and homeowners stance. Lets be clear and honest, parking is already an issue in this block today without the addition of your tenants at 810 ( your current building that looks to be a fine addition to community). My question; is acquiring the lot north of 810 a possibility to accommodate parking for tenants for the proposed new 8 unit building?
My next question, if the above is not possible,would you be amenable to re configuring this building to a smaller footprint 4 unit building? I understand capitalization cost and return of investment considerations but it may also be wise to consider community support for your project and the impact community support, or lack thereof, may have on securing the necessary variances to complete your project. This area is zoned multifamily and commercial (corner) buildings but, I doubt you’ll receive overwhelming community support for an 8 unit building on such a relatively small parcel in an already high density area. A fresh look at this project may win overall community support and you would not have to take time to write rebuttals every time someone disagrees with your project on CHPN.
Just looked at 808 renderings submitted to CAR. The proposed buildings (2 not 1), overall, are not in keeping with appearance of community.You’re asking to build 2 separate buildings joined by a stairwell and deck. Front building appears to be in keeping with overall community design,but that separate joined rear building looks like a straight up and down detached box. What type siding are you proposing on rear building? I certainly hope there is another plan for a more architecturally compatible building?
Terry Peters
Parking is a valid concern when you are, as Mr. Kleyman claims, attracting high quality residents. Its especially important in a fragile area such as this block with us being so close to Mosby Court. If you’re “a high quality person looking for a nice apartment but it’s close to Mosby and there’s no parking, ” I’ll get back to you”!
His proposed building is unattractive and does not fit into this community ( sorta like 813-815 N. 21st, go take a look) plus regardless of his plans and statements, more street parking will be necessary to accommodate 10 new apartments in a block already heavily ladened with 4 quads (3 fully occupied) a 6 six unit low income cinderblock apt, 2 nice townhomes, 1 commercial building, 1 single family home AND a vacant lot thats zoned multi family currently for sale at corner of 21st and Carrington, all in 1 Block. Mr Kleyman will have my support if he changes this design to accommodate what this lot’s original and current zoning allows, a DUPLEX. He should under no circumstances be allowed to build a 8 unit apartment building in this already heavily congested, beautiful, fragile block. If he receives approval to build that many units it will, unquestionably, set this block back.While Mr Kleyman has stated he is in it for the long haul we must remember, he is an investor and should this ship start sinking he will sell and leave us holding that “Jefferson Townhouse ( minus parking)” type Apt building in our block. JT
BAF
Just because someone purchases property does not mean we should pander to their every request. Mr. Kleyman should have contacted his neighbors/fellow investors prior submitting this plan. This lot (808) is currently zoned for a duplex ( so he will need a zoning change), not 8 units. This community and this block and it’s future are heavily invested in, financially and with sweat equity, by many of us here and he is one person, with his own ideas. As previously stated, we support Mr. Kleymans 810 project even with the added unit and parking but there is absolutely no way any reasonable investor/resident should support his other buildings ( yes this is 2 buildings, not one), a 6,500sq ft, 8 apartment building and no concrete to support parking.
Why don’t you ride over here one evening a take a photo of all these cars or better yet maybe he could find a duplex zoned lot in your block and build 8 units. JT
“should be no more than a duplex on any parcel … where single family is most appropriate”
This is what the conversation is about: where single family is most appropriate.
The conversations on here are just so depressing sometimes.
For what it’s worth, which is probably nothing, I think the development should be allowed to go ahead.
Thanks everybody.
JulesT: 808 N 21st is zoned for 8 units, not 2. You obviously lack basic understanding of zoning. I don’t need community support or your support for this project. I’m not seeking any variances at all.
sorta like 809 and 810 N. 21st . Both those buildings are zoned duplex but there are single family townhouse on those lots. 806 is only building zoned single family.
This development ( 808), as proposed should never be allowed in any section of this community except where current zoning permits.
nuff said!
Daniil
Guess this means you’re gonna stick to the plan.
While I may or may not lack basic understanding of zoning, I do not lack basic understanding of inappropriate. The building you “propose” is highly inappropriately designed and usage “proposed” will be detrimental this community.
Below is cut and paste reference your property. This is a r63 district (medium density) and your lot (808) is, according to city, deemed, “160-R 2 family blt as”. There is absolutely not one other building in this community built as you propose (ugly, overpowering, and 3 levels to boot ). Variance, zoning change or inappropriate, I stand firmly against this 2 building, 3 level, 6500 sq ft monstrosity you propose to unleash on this block full of 2 level apartments, 2 level single family ( next door 806), and 2 level single family occupied town homes across street ( 809 811). Since you don’t concern or need community support or input,only profit $$$, unleash the beast. I’m done for now!
Street Address: 808 N 21st St Richmond, VA 23223-
Owner: 810 N 21ST ST LLC
Mailing Address: 519 N 30TH ST #2, RICHMOND, VA 23223
Subdivision Name : NONE
Parent Parcel ID:
Assessment Area: 332 – East End – Fairmont/Creighton
Property Class: 160 – R Two Family Blt-As
Zoning District: R-63 – Residential (Multi-family Urban)
@17
But that’s just it. No one has to pander to Mr. Kleyman’s requests, because he doesn’t need a variance. If he required a variance, then you would have a say. But without him needing one, he is in his rights to proceed as he proposes and neither needs your input or permission.
I don’t say that to be mean or nasty. But there are a lot of people up here who lots of opinions about other people’s property when the people who own that property are acting within existing rights and privileges. If someone doesn’t want an 8 unit building on that lot, and if one is allowed under current zoning, then the best thing you can do is make an offer to Mr. Kleyman to buy his property so you can develop it in a way that suits your tastes and goals. Otherwise, so long as he doesn’t need a variance and is following all regulations he can do as he wants. The resistance to by-right projects in this neighborhood is stunning to me.
Welcome to Church Hill! it will be just like the Fan in a few years- isn’t that awesome!!!
So if as you say he can proceed with his plans why is he requesting approval from CAR to build that building in this community.Why is there now a movement to reassess the large complex on Citadel of Hope site? He should go on and build it since, as he states, it’s already zoned for 8 units.
Fortunately there are means to contest these type overpowering developers from destroying these protected communities. It’s not as simple as you try and project and people interested in preserving the integrity of these areass will not now lay down simply because developer has terrible plans, money,and connections.
@Jules T – It’s not that Daniil is requesting approval from CAR per se, but that all exterior projects of any scale in any of the City Old & Historic Districts have to be approved by the Commission of Architectural Review:
There are links here with more information about CAR http://www.richmondgov.com/commissionarchitecturalreview/index.aspx
Conversation around this project (and the Citadel development) are connecting the CAR review process and potential opposition due to size and scale. This is very reminiscent of the conversation around the Oakwood Heights (now The Lofty) development back in 2009 (http://chpn.net/tag/oakwood-heights/). This was also a dense, large proposal – on land zoned to allow this kind of development. While some neighbors were adamantly opposed and CAR had the ability to spec some details of that project, it got built.
Authorizing massive apartment complexes like this one to be built in the middle of single family homes (806 811 809, and 810) is a horrible idea and an r63 community designation should not allow automatic approval based purely on land mass.
This developer is pimping this section of Union Hill to line his pockets. The proposed 6500sq.ft, 8 unit building has no connection to it’s neighboring structures and will very quickly become low income housing dragging the surrounding properties around it down with it.
CAR can recommend reduction of footprint amongst other alternatives. Let me also make this perfectly clear, I am not against responsible development here. I am owner of an apartment building in the same block. I have supported other renovation and build projects in this area ( 2025 Venable, 2108 Venable, 2009 Venable).
This building (808) by design, will look similar to the apartment building located in the middle of 2200 block of Venable except it’s longer, taller and even more apartments.
Lastly, I will pose to CAR and zoning dept questions pertaining to required 8 parking spaces submitted in his planning. Simply saying he’ll utilize parking at 810 lot as overflow should not be a viable solution.
This has certainly been an eye opener for me. Council, Mayor, and zoning representatives should revisit the area’s of zoning to incorporate community involvement and participation in such matters. To allow an individual or corporation to ruin a community without meaningful input from surrounding homeowners should be unthinkable. This fellow has renovated a 2 unit home at 810 and now plans to build a 8 unit low income apt building next door. Wonder how Daniil would feel if he didn’t own 808? Would he be as happy having developer come in and put a 8 unit apt building next door to his duplex at 810 because he can? Later!
@JulesT – For some more semi-recent history: Union Hill was rezoned in 2009, after a series of community meetings in 2008/2009. (http://chpn.net/?s=union+hill+rezoning)
@JulesT
But what you propose is not a realistic option either. The whole purpose of zoning is so the purchaser can know up-front what is and is not currently allowable on the plot.
Your proposal would lead to tremendous front end risk. If a property is currently zoned for an 8 unit apartment, your proposal says I STILL don’t have the right to build one without community involvement. How can I reasonably buy land if I don’t know what I can do with the land before I buy it and submit to your process, when the zoning says my project is suited for the space.
You are blaming Mr. Kleyman for exercising the rights he has over that property due to the current zoning. He’s well within his rights. Unfortunately, and I do not say this to be mean, the failure here is yours. You purchased a property without doing due diligence about what could and could not be done with surrounding properties by-right. That’s on you. You may not be happy with his decision, but it’s on you that you didn’t know what could be done with the neighboring land and take that into consideration before you made your own investment.
For what it’s worth, I made the same error. When I moved into my location, there was a vacant home at the end of the block. For a number of reasons, I could not put together the funds and/or find the owners to buy it–and I mostly wanted to do so to ensure that it was a quality residential renovation to enhance my property value rather than as an income-producing plan. Today that building is slated to be a restaurant (if the partners ever wrap up their litigation). Now I’m not crazy about that–not excited about the traffic nor the potential for the garbage and discarded food to be a vermin magnet in the alley. But they have the right to build it and I wasn’t able to figure out a way to take control of that property when I looked into it. Just because I don’t prefer their choice doesn’t give me a right to demand they accede to my wishes provided they are not seeking an exception to current regulation, such as a variance.
I appreciate that the development is not what you would prefer but I submit to you that the way to guarantee the development you WOULD prefer is to have bought the property rather than trying to rein in Mr. Kleyman’s existing rights.
@Jules T – I think you are confusing property classification with zoning. As I understand it, property classification describes what is there – or what used to be there, in this case. The zoning describes what is actually permitted. These two frequently do not match. See John M’s comment about rezoning in the area. I think that outcome has already been decided.
As for neighboring structures/cohesiveness/architecture: I actually like the design Daniil has come up with, but I think it would be really great if he could build something that looks more like the four-plexes across the street. The grouping of buildings on the other side (which wraps around the corner onto Venable) include a mixed use structure, a double bay fourplex without balconies, and three or four matching fourplexes with balconies and front porches. Seems like a great example of cohesive, vernacular architecture.
I live nearby and own property nearby, though admittedly not on this block. I also have considered purchasing more than one of the fourplexes over the years, but was concerned about the proximity to Mosby court. I think it’s great that someone feels bullish about the area
BAF
First and foremost 808 is not zoned for an 8 unit apartment building . That is utter nonsense This area is zoned R63 and your boss is asking CAR to approve the appropriatness of his monstrosity in relationship to the historical appearance of other buildings in this area of which there are zero like the one he proposes. If he had interest in maintaining balance in this community he would have submitted plans for a duplex or 4 unit building similar to existing structure but he is looking only for maximum cash returns so he’s squeezing every inch to maximize his returns! He has renderings with compliance numbers for his lot with existing rules governing R63 structure without concern of community. It’s all about his money, just like you keep briadcasting.
Wow the comments here by pro development people no matter what the cost to the people who already live there are incredulous. Unless you live here, please leave. I had to laugh at the idea of any housing here becoming high end single apartments. What a joke. Just let the folks dodge the drug users, aimless people on the streets, get hustled or robbed, watching their back all the while and see how many call back to put money down. I predict you will have people trashing your units, and you will be evicting them 4 months later because they haven’t paid rent. I would not dream of living on this street with the ABC store to boot.
Commenting and use policy reminder
http://chpn.net/2016/09/19/commenting-and-use-policy-reminder/
All you people complaining about parking and drug users and people who live in apartments, what are you still doing in Richmond? Go to the suburbs where you belong.
I think it’s great that Mr. Kleyman is trying to bring new residents into the community.
BAF surely you are, or should be, a follower/subscriber/student to Daniil Kleymans program, “Flipping or Crashing In Real Estate”. Listen to me BAF, this guy is gonna leave you and all his other “investor,student,followers, seminar participants” holding that bag of worthless real estate after he completes that montrosity at 808. Even the name of his program should give you some concern “flipping or CRASHING in Real Estate” , He’s not the 1st, remember Carlton Sheets, Armondo Montelongo among others. They’ve had a few successful followers but the vast majority of investor/students were stuck with a bunch of semi-worthless reading materials on a stool next to their toilet or a bunch of trashy 1 br apartments next to a public housing development. Trump University is probably a better deal!. Just to show you I’m not making this up or being mean spirited here’s a link to your mentors site so we can all read about his success at taking, I mean making, money.
http://flippinginrealestate.blogspot.com/2013/08/rehab-valuator-daniil-v-kleyman-and.html
Church Hill property owners and residents. Take heed and be warned. We can and should accommodate reasonable responsible growth. We should welcome responsible development but we also must gather together and stand against projects that do not favorably serve our communities.
Having a new and less proved “Carlton Sheets ” bring his money making methodogy here to teach his students and line his pockets may or may not be a good thing. It’s case by case. 808 Is a terrible idea other than making money.
@JulesT
So a couple of things…
1) Mr. Kleyman isn’t my boss. I have not met the man nor could I pick him out of a lineup nor do I have a business relationship with him that I know of. You are welcome to come by my downtown office to see for yourself. What I am is someone who is pretty passionate about one’s legal rights to use their property as they see fit within the law without interference from others PROVIDED they do not require a variance to do so. If a variance is needed–a special exception or deal if you will–then all bets are off.
2. I looked up the R-63 zoning designation. (http://www.richmondgov.com/planninganddevelopmentreview/documents/RHandbook.pdf). Multi-family dwellings are clearly permissible and there is no reference I can see that limits the number of units other than the size of the lot.
3. I have no idea whether he has an interest in “maintaining balance in this community” or not. But that is not the standard that the law appears to impose–just one you want to impose. I assume his development is what he feels is best to get the maximum returns on his investment. He may well be wrong in his analysis. I have no idea since I am not in that line of work. But maximizing returns is what developers generally seem to want to do (certainly it seems rational that they would want to) and he is under no legal obligation to do more to maintain your vision of what the community ought to be despite your demands to the contrary.
4. Finally I am not expert on CAR, but to my untrained eyes, the building looks to be basically in line with what I see in the area. A little taller to be sure, but not dramatically so. He has not proposed a skyscraper next to a bungalow by any means. And the guy’s got stones to invest that kind of money next to a blighted house like 810. I wouldn’t do it, but I am glad he will since it may help continue the northward push of revitalization of the neighborhood.
@CHPN/Jon I hope that none of my comments in this thread have been in violation of your policies. If they were, it was inadvertent.
@JulesT
I remember all of them. My favorite was a guy named Tom Vu. His informercial was one of the greatest things I ever saw in terms of bizarre messaging. If you took Tom’s seminar you could get rich and get beautiful woman to come on your yacht.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K853GykeGH0
Vu plays poker for a living last I checked. And to be clear, I have never bought any of their materials or even had an interest in doing so.
I have no financial interest in the property. The only real estate investment I have is my house on 25th Street. Whether or not Mr. Kleyman succeeds or fails is not my concern. My only concern is that people need to respect the rights of others to use their property as they see fit so long as they are within the applicable law. I am not arguing this because I have a financial stake in this. I don’t. I am arguing this because to me this is an issue of right and wrong. Mr. Kleyman has done nothing wrong that I can see other than what he is doing is something you don’t like. I may not like what my neighbor does on his property either, but if the law allows it without needing special permission, I accept that I don’t have much recourse. He owes me nothing. It’s his land bought with his resources to do with as he wishes within the confines of the law.
It’s no different in Kleyman’s case. You may not like the choices he is making. You may believe the project will fail. You may be right in that–projects fail all the time. I personally have no real opinion on his project’s merits. But you have no standing to tell him he cannot do it, when the law says he can. That is my sole point and if you look at other property debates, I have been very consistent in this view for years. If you want to control what happens on a property, then own the property. If you won’t, can’t or don’t, then your opportunity to weigh in only exists if they property owner is looking for a variance. Mr. Kleyman is not and, accordingly, he gets to build his building whether you like it or not.
JulesT: that’s not my site/blog. It’s a 3rd party review of a software program my company sells. If you’re going to (anonymously) bad mouth me in your drunken semi-socialist ramblings, I’d prefer you do some basic research first. Thank you.
I’m not saying what he can or cannot do. I’m saying he is a flipper that has no interest in bettering a community or understanding of historical preservation. I’m saying he is a flipper only concerned with making money, plain and simple.
I’m fully aware now of how this zoning designation is being used. There is no 8 unit zoning, his buildings are designed to exist within framework of existing R63 parameters. Nothing more. There are agencies empowered to protect certain communities from developer/builders who have no respect for historical preservation. Contacting and asking their assistance in maintaining what they’ve been charged to protect is what I’m doing BAF along with notifying neihbors/ owners what Daniil proposes ! Now you can get off the zoning bus cause I’m not there.
Good to hear from you Daniil
Is being label a socialist so terrible today (i’m not) I do receive social security ( so you’re libeling a senior citizen).
I would not bad mouth you, I don’t even know you personally.. I am a stock market, real estate owning capitalist and as far as being drunk, nope, not yet.
Copied and pasted from internet your site.
One last little oversight you missed BAF, ref that blighted property at 810 N. 21st next door you mentioned ;
(“And the guy’s got stones to invest that kind of money next to a blighted house like 810”)
He owns it, that’s how he got the lot. lol!
cha ching! Guys no dummy for sure. I just wish he would make the apartment building more in line with community.
$$$$$$
JulesT:
I don’t care that he is a flipper, if in fact that is the case. That’s a way to make a living legally. That doesn’t disqualify his project in any way that I know of. Just because you believe he doesn’t have a deep interest in the community or in historical preservation (and I have no idea if that is true or not) in no way disqualifies the validity of his project. There is nothing that says you cannot flip that lot or that you have to be deeply engrained in the neighborhood to build on that lot. You want to impugn the man’s character as a reason not to permit the project. That’s not a factor here, no matter how much you wish it to be so.
As far as I know, there is nothing historic to be preserved on 808. That means his obligation is to create something that fits into the existing neighborhood space. Looking at the proposed plan, he seems to meet that in most respects other than height, but I am no expert in CAR’s rules and process.
If Mr. Kleyman owns 810 too, then I hope he quickly renovates that property too. The images I have seen do make it appear to be blighted. Abating the blight will only enhance the 808 project so hopefully he will be tackling that at the same time.
Peanut gallery is nodding their head and slow clapping at BAF comments, then shaking their head vigorously at Kleyman comments.
C’mon Daniil, you’re welcome and within your rights to build in the community. Just show some respect in the way you communicate. That’s how we so things around here.
Let’s be clear,no one I know of is asking Danil not to build (Jason S.),. We ask that he build with respect to historical, neighboring, like type structure, so this block (area) won’t look conceptually like 21st and Broad with those two monster 3-4 level homes towering over neighboring homes.
This has nothing to do with me living here! I want to make that perfectly clear
Daniil is protecting his investment and it’s my right to use all resources to attempt to protect my investment when I “perceive” someone will have negative impact to that investment. This is what investors do, This is MY right.
Peanut Gallery may wish to slow the “head shaking and hand clapping” for a moment.
810 ( the “blighted” one) is almost finished and will be 1st to hit market? The “blighted” 810 will be coming to market, structurally as you see it, very soon.
You’ll have to check with Daniil if you’re interested in his plans for 808 once he has 810 flipped or rented.
Building from the ground up takes a lot of cash so my “monies” on him selling 810.
Ciao
Danil has already divided the lots (it’s his “right”). 808 has 8007 square ft of property ( probably using some of rear of 810). 810 is now a 4648 ft lot with 204ft rear yard. This will satisfy 8 cars parking for 808, maybe. I assume this is reason he rehabbed 810 and left it a duplex with on-street parking. Very nice, but there’s still design. CAR will recognize 808 is too many buildings, too many apartments, and too inappropriate for this block.
Peanut Gallery respects your passion, JulesT. Keep advocating for what you feel is right.
btw, was shaking my head horizontally at Daniil’s comments, not vertically. He was being pretty rude there.
I’m not dismissing JulesT concerns. But he is making slumlord-esque many assumptions about Daniil. What are the assumptions based on?
As a follower of CHPN it seems Daniil has had his hands in many different residential developments in the East End over the last decade. Have any of these become nuisance properties to neighbors? Honestly asking…