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 a number of garages, multi-family homes
12/07/2017 1:07 PM by John M
- 3118 East Broad Street – Construct a new garage
- 730 North 23rd Street – Relocate a window and door on the rear of the structure
- 625 North 27th Street – Construct a new garage
- 533 Mosby Street – Modify approved plans for a new garage
- 3000-3006 East Franklin Street – Modify approved plans for three attached single family dwellings
- 2108 1/2 East Broad Street – Construct new three-story single family home
- 3020 East Franklin Street – Construct a new duplex
- 2200 – 2202 M Street – Construct a new duplex
- 2825 M Street – Construct a new duplex
— ∮∮∮ —
2200 – 2202 M Street
— ∮∮∮ —
2108 1/2 East Broad Street
— ∮∮∮ —
2825 M Street
— ∮∮∮ —
3000-3006 East Franklin Stree
— ∮∮∮ —
3020 East Franklin Street
TAGGED: CAR
The project at 2108 1/2 E. Broad St. should not happen.
2108 1/2 East Broad Street… what the hell is that?
2108 1/2 was designed by Johannas…..enough said.
It’s a house. Are you the arbiter of taste?
Why should this house not happen?
Agree #1 and #2. Anything we can do to oppose this?
I feel bad for that Broad Street developer. (Full disclosure he is a friend of mine and client). He once tried to build something modern in the historic district and the neighborhood didn’t like it. So this time he tried to build something that blended in super well with the district and CAR told him they thought he should build something modern. So he is now proposing modern to please them. Can’t please everyone even when he tried.
Not sure in context it’ll be looking like its flicking off the row across the street
2825 M street actually looks nice. It seems like folks in Church Hill often try (and fail) to build Italianate duplexes and row homes – they just can’t get the proportions and the details right. This farmhouse / stripped down traditional look seems to work better.
#7 is exactly right. I share an alley with that lot, and what he proposed before tried to blend in and it was turned down. My concern has always been with the height, but it’s an awkward, narrow lot, so probably impractical to do 2 stories. Either way, the developer seems to have worked well in discussing the development with the two neighboring lots, and as long as that continues, I’d rather see something built than a vacant lot used as a de facto alley to Broad street.
Yeah, what Matt and Dave said. Because I live within 250′ of this, I’ve been notified since the beginning. The lot width is a SOB. Given what land is worth now, I’m sure you have to go up to get ROI and make it competitive for what people want in single family homes. I hope an actual family moves into this and it doesn’t become some college rental. This “first block” of Church Hill could use some TLC.
@11 This project is going to be a high end home that will be for sale so most likely will be an owner occupant. 🙂
As the neighboring lot owner, he has not even tried to reach me. I was reached out to over a year ago when it first went before CAR and said I would not agree with it. It is a skinny towering monstrosity compared to the original homes still in tact on that block. It will look even worse than the monstrosity that somehow was built at 2102-2104. Please attend the meeting to speak against this project. Modern is way out of character with this mostly intact block. The 2 homes on either side are circa 1885. It looks ridiculous.
#5 and #7 – OK let’s listen to Vonda and understand why this is just such a monstrosity. Since you don’t live near by you cannot understand why this would not fit in with the neighborhood. And really, Dave, you have a conflict of interest, here, and can’t see what this would do for the surrounding area.
Are there criteria someone should follow to design a house in this neighborhood? Are there written rules so decisions are not arbitrary? If not, aesthetics is in the eye of the beholder and since there is no standard, there will be differences of opinion in almost every case. Everyone, including neighbors, not just Dave, have conflicts of interest.
Tom Bell, are you being facetious? Do you know what CAR is?
I know what CAR is; i know how neighborhoods and neighbors can be. I was told once I could not paint brick and the front door of my house green/grey and turquoise, respectively because it offended my neighbor and the Design Review Board (DRB) voted not to let me proceed. The house was submitted to Atomic Ranch magazine (it was a mid century modern dwelling) who thought the changes were well within the color palate for that period and style of house. No one on the DRB had a clue about mid-century modern aesthetics, but I was denied since my neighbor did not like the color.
#15 – “Are there criteria someone should follow to design a house in this neighborhood?”
If “…this neighborhood” is one of Richmond’s Old and Historic Districts, yes, there are criteria outlined in “The Handbook and Design Review Guidelines” at this pdf from the city site: http://www.richmondgov.com/CommissionArchitecturalReview/documents/Old_Historic_Dist.pdf
Richmond’s guidelines follow pretty carefully (but not exactly) the standards established by the U.S. Department of the Interior which can be found here: https://www.nps.gov/subjects/historicpreservation/standards.htm
I reviewed the guidelines, but did not see anything with respect to new construction. How does CAR judge what fits in a neighborhood?
Tom Bell, the New Construction section begins on page 43, 44 of
http://www.richmondgov.com/CommissionArchitecturalReview/documents/Old_Historic_Dist.pdf
#20 – Glad you gave the page numbers. For those still looking, here’s a cut and paste of Chapter 3 of the table of contents showing where, among other things, “New Construction” can be found in the city’s OHD guidelines:
Chapter 3
The Design Review Guidelines 43
New Construction 46
Rehabilitation 58
Substitute Materials 60
Paint Chart 64
Building Elements 66
Public Improvements 76
Building Relocation 80
Demolition 82
References 84