Manchester Development

[rjp212]

Agree to disagree. It’s massing is atrocious, the color scheme sill age horribly and it’s visibly from the River. We will hate it years from now. 

[I miss RVA]

18 hours ago, rjp212 said:

I secretly hope this project dies with the recession.   I still hate it so much!

 

BITE YOUR TONGUE!!!

Sorry - MAJOR disagree with you. We need EVERY highrise we can get our hands on. Step out of the classic Richmond box for a few minutes and think bigger picture. Personally, I don't "mind" the design. My favorite? Far from it. Could it be designed better? Ohhhh yes. HOWEVER ... we NEED these buildings right now. Don't get hung up on the color of the leaves when we don't even have the tree growing yet. Buildings like these bring density and more overall population -- all of which moves Richmond higher in people numbers. That growth is badly needed.

Mind you, I agree with you that it's not the greatest design in the world - BUT I WANT IT BUILT!!! We can worry about what things look like later on -- remember THE axiom of architecture -- "form FOLLOWS function" -- not the other way around. The bloody recession better NOT kill this project!! These projects don't grow on trees for Richmond. For New York, for Chicago, yes. Low-hanging fruit at worst. But for Richmond?

BUILD IT!!!!

7 hours ago, rjp212 said:

Agree to disagree. It’s massing is atrocious, the color scheme sill age horribly and it’s visibly from the River. We will hate it years from now. 

YOU will hate it for years to come - I personally will celebrate what it can contribute overall to the city. I honestly don't really care so much what it looks like. Not my favorite design by any measure - BUT WE NEED IT. We're not in a position right now to be picky about projects. 

Repeat after me boys and girls - "RICHMOND ... NEEDS ... EVERY ... SINGLE ... HIGHRISE ... SHE ... CAN ... GET ... HER ... HANDS ... ON!!!"

That was easy, yeah?

10 hours ago, eandslee said:

No...I like it.  The couple things that might improve it would be ground floor retail and maybe more height. 

I'm always in favor of more height -- but barring that, BUILD IT!! Not the prettiest design in the world -- but from a big-picture standpoint, it accomplishes a HECK of a lot more than what's there right now.

Edited May 21, 2020 by I miss RVA

[Icetera]

Personally, I kind of like it.  It could certainly be better but it is a nice height to where something taller can be built behind it (past Legend) and create a nice stepped density.

[RVA-Is-The-Best]

7 hours ago, rjp212 said:

Agree to disagree. It’s massing is atrocious, the color scheme sill age horribly and it’s visibly from the River. We will hate it years from now. 

While I am always for more density, I low key kind of have to agree here. The colors are garish

 

That being said, I think there is a rare chance once it's actually built it will turn out much better. Prime example of this is the Locks Tower, the renderings looked awful but the real thing has really grown on me. Same could happen here.

Edited May 21, 2020 by RVA-Is-The-Best

[I miss RVA]

1 minute ago, Icetera said:

Personally, I kind of like it.  It could certainly be better but it is a nice height to where something taller can be built behind it (past Legend) and create a nice stepped density.

Yep, I agree. Honestly, I don't mind the design. I'm turned on big time by the density it can bring. That's a LOT of people who could be living down there on the Manchester riverfront. And the old adage of "success breeds success" or "money brings money" - as well as this one - "To those who have everything more will be given. From those who have nothing everything will be taken" -- certainly seems to apply to cities. If you grow and get bigger, you get more growth. If you stagnate or worse, you keep bleeding what you have.

We need 'em. BUILD 'EM!!! And the sooner the better!

[rjp212]

Strong disagreement.  Density for density sake is never the answer.  Just look at the Landmark neighborhood or Baileys Crossroads for how just because it’s tall. it doesn’t benefit the city.  I am very pro growth, having spent my professional career as a Planner and Realtor, but this is not it.  I understand beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but this building will have absolutely no street presence and will act essentially as a “Tract housing” the sky.   Tenants will pull up into a parking garage to whatever level is closest to their floor and walk inside. I assure you the construction will be biggest bang for the buck cheap, and will age poorly. Take a look at its neighbor Rivers Edge for an example of cheap and quick construction   The sun will fade the black and red and it will look dated quickly.    I would chalk it up as a “filler project” if it weren’t for it’s visibility along the River.  No project will be able to hide it and as it ages, we will have to stare at it.   

Just my .02, I understand everyone has their own opinion on what Richmond needs. 

 

[I miss RVA]

1 hour ago, rjp212 said:

Strong disagreement.  Density for density sake is never the answer.  Just look at the Landmark neighborhood or Baileys Crossroads for how just because it’s tall. it doesn’t benefit the city.  I am very pro growth, having spent my professional career as a Planner and Realtor, but this is not it.  I understand beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but this building will have absolutely no street presence and will act essentially as a “Tract housing” the sky.   Tenants will pull up into a parking garage to whatever level is closest to their floor and walk inside. I assure you the construction will be biggest bang for the buck cheap, and will age poorly. Take a look at its neighbor Rivers Edge for an example of cheap and quick construction   The sun will fade the black and red and it will look dated quickly.    I would chalk it up as a “filler project” if it weren’t for it’s visibility along the River.  No project will be able to hide it and as it ages, we will have to stare at it.   

Just my .02, I understand everyone has their own opinion on what Richmond needs. 

 

This isn't "density for the sake of density" - this is density that is sorely needed in a city that has almost no density to speak of. Until recently Manchester has been a wasteland. It's been on fire the last few years. If that area (and this argument applies to the city as a whole) is going to grow in both population and economically, we have to build for it. Right now, Manchester NEEDS the density. So much talk about wanting to put in grocery stores and pharmacies and restore retails, say, to Hull Street. How does that happen without a critical mass of people? Getting young professionals down there - okay, so they pull into a parking garage and take a lift to their floor and walk inside. SO WHAT??? All those professionals will be working perhaps downtown. All those people will be in the neighborhood. If a grocery opens up, it will have support. Ditto pharmacies. If hot retail starts popping up along Hull street, there will be patrons. I know that if I were 30 years younger and moving to Richmond, so long as my income was appropriate, I'd consider a building like this one for many reasons, especially if my job was across the river. If I were an entrepreneur looking to open an establishment on Hull Street, I'd WANT these buildings built because - lots of people might come in to do business with me (whether I'm retail, food service, small business service... whatever!)

The growth in the area is proof positive that the "sell" point isn't based on architecture, design, style. It's LOCATION and amenities. Manchester has a UNIQUE opportunity to keep this huge momentum rolling. 

Planning - you're an urban planner? For what locality?

If not this set of buildings, then what exactly?

So say it doesn't get built. The recession GOD-FORBID a million times over kills it. And the property sits there... like so many other properties in Richmond... 10... 20... 30 years go by. So instead of staring at it, you get to start at a vacant lot that may be decades before something is built on there BECAUSE THAT'S HOW IT GOES IN RICHMOND. This ain't New York - where if something proposed falls through, NO WORRIES... projects in New York or Chicago are like buses - you miss one, wait a few minutes and the next one comes along. It doesn't work that way in Richmond. At least not in my lifetime it hasn't. Richmond doesn't bounce back from recessions or killed projects the way other cities do. In my lifetime, a failed project has more often than not led to a vacant lot, a parking lot, a parking deck or even if something eventually is built, it is significantly smaller and can't come close to accomplishing what COULD HAVE been accomplished with the much larger project.

Want a prime example? Centenial Towers. It was planned for 22 stories - twin towers on Main Street downtown between 5th and 6th streets. The (I believe 2008) recession killed it. Didn't get developed. Guess what's going up there now? A building -- from the same developers -- a whopping SIX STORIES. To say my overall disappointment that has carried on for all these years about that project is EPIC is an understatement of BIBLICAL proportions.

So you'd be okay with it dying on the vine even if it mean NOTHING goes up there? 

 

I posted this on another thread... THIS has been my dream for 50 years now for Richmond...

https://wdanielanderson.wordpress.com/2017/03/31/atlanta-now-big-city/

 

Edited May 22, 2020 by I miss RVA

[rjp212]

I get you lament what Richmond has missed out on, but this property will not benefit the city outside of density.  It's adjacent to a planned park, one of the few riverview properties left and is in an Opportunity Zone.   Someone else will come along and grab or, or it can be incorporated into the park.  Richmond today is not the Richmond of 30, 20 or even 10 years ago.  We are one of the fastest growing cities in Virginia, constantly being nationally ranked on culture/experience, and a top 5 state for Business.  Developers would be stupid not to take it for at least the tax benefits.   The building could have been split in two (no sky bridge which only contributes to what I called "tract housing in the sky"), street level rental units to wrap the parking garage (retail will never work here and right now it's podium parking) and the interior courtyard could be an extension of the planned park (Covid has proved we lack access to adequate outdoor space).   Simple changes can make this building much better.

But yes, I'd absolutely be fine with this sitting vacant for another few years instead of just settling.  This isn't Navy Hill which is a master plan development with many moving parts and would adjust to market demands. This is a critique on a development that is happening nonetheless and missing the marks on contributing to what makes a neighborhood.

Edited May 22, 2020 by rjp212

[Brent114]

There isn’t a person alive today that will live long enough to see that area behind the flood wall turned into a park. 
 

 

[I miss RVA]

10 minutes ago, Brent114 said:

There isn’t a person alive today that will live long enough to see that area behind the flood wall turned into a park. 
 

 

Our children -- even our grand children -- won't live long enough to see that!

[rjp212]

Why not?  Just because Richmond hasn't in the past?  Why not ask for more?   You all are pushing for Richmond to think bigger and not be defeat-ist but then say things like "Take it or leave it, because we never have opportunities like this", or "that won't happen in our lifetime".   <paraphrasing> . You have half million dollar townhomes going up nearby, a new canal walk being incorporated with South Falls and soon to be 1000s of new residents from other projects who are being attracted to the area because of the river access.  Build something that the neighborhood has pride in and they will push for changes such as a new park.

Edited May 22, 2020 by rjp212

[I miss RVA]

18 minutes ago, rjp212 said:

I get you lament what Richmond has missed out on, but this property will not benefit the city outside of density.  It's adjacent to a planned park, one of the few riverview properties left and is in an Opportunity Zone.   Someone else will come along and grab or, or it can be incorporated into the park.  Richmond today is not the Richmond of 30, 20 or even 10 years ago.  We are one of the fastest growing cities in Virginia, constantly being nationally ranked on culture/experience, and a top 5 state for Business.  Developers would be stupid not to take it for at least the tax benefits.   The building could have been split in two (no sky bridge which only contributes to what I called "tract housing in the sky"), street level rental units to wrap the parking garage (retail will never work here and right now it's podium parking) and the interior courtyard could be an extension of the planned park (Covid has proved we lack access to adequate outdoor space).   Simple changes can make this building much better.

But yes, I'd absolutely be fine with this sitting vacant for another few years instead of just settling.  This isn't Navy Hill which is a master plan development with many moving parts and would adjust to market demands. This is a critique on a development that is happening nonetheless and missing the marks on contributing to what makes a neighborhood.

Few years or few decades? This isn't New York.

Want a prime example of a prime piece of property where a prime development was killed by the recession and what's going up in its place is... so disappointing it's difficult to even think about?

Centennial Towers. A pair of gorgeous 22-story residential/mixed used buildings on Main Street downtown. Recession (I think '08?) killed it. Fast forward close to 15 years. Guess what's going up on that site now? Same developer... a SIX STORY BUILDING. My face-palm is so ferocious I think I left a palm print on the interior of the back of my skull...

[I miss RVA]

4 minutes ago, rjp212 said:

Why not?  Just because Richmond hasn't in the past?  Why not ask for more?   You all are pushing for Richmond to think bigger and not be defeat-ist but then say things like "Take it or leave it, because we never have opportunities like this", or "that won't happen in our lifetime".   <paraphrasing> . You have half million dollar townhomes going up nearby, a new canal walk being incorporated with South Falls and soon to be 1000s of new residents from other projects who are being attracted to the area because of the river access.  Build something that the neighborhood has pride in and they will push for changes such as a new park.

If by "better" you mean we find a developer to come in and put up a couple of 60 story, precision-crafted, thoughtfully-designed buildings on that site, I'd be more than happy to see that -- but it'll never happen! It's not a "take-it-or-leave-it" -- it's a simple fact that Richmond does not typically get a redo on a missed opportunity. Think Piedmont Airlines - late 1970s. They wanted to establish their hub here. But the powers that be said "No thank you, We don't need to spend extra for parallel runways and a bigger terminal. We're happy with what we have." ... Piedmont went to Charlotte. The rest is history.

Mind you, I very much like your suggestions for how they could improve the project. Obviously they are not planning their project from an integrative perspective. But you'd trade in a high-density pair of towers for a row of townhouses that might - MIGHT - bring in 5% to 10% of the number of people to that area? Or even 20%

We keep falling farther and farther behind Atlanta and Charlotte and now Raleigh and (fill in the blank) for a reason.

30 minutes ago, rjp212 said:

I get you lament what Richmond has missed out on, but this property will not benefit the city outside of density.  It's adjacent to a planned park, one of the few riverview properties left and is in an Opportunity Zone.   Someone else will come along and grab or, or it can be incorporated into the park.  Richmond today is not the Richmond of 30, 20 or even 10 years ago.  We are one of the fastest growing cities in Virginia, constantly being nationally ranked on culture/experience, and a top 5 state for Business.  Developers would be stupid not to take it for at least the tax benefits.   The building could have been split in two (no sky bridge which only contributes to what I called "tract housing in the sky"), street level rental units to wrap the parking garage (retail will never work here and right now it's podium parking) and the interior courtyard could be an extension of the planned park (Covid has proved we lack access to adequate outdoor space).   Simple changes can make this building much better.

But yes, I'd absolutely be fine with this sitting vacant for another few years instead of just settling.  This isn't Navy Hill which is a master plan development with many moving parts and would adjust to market demands. This is a critique on a development that is happening nonetheless and missing the marks on contributing to what makes a neighborhood.

I agree about the sky bridge. I'm not a huge fan of it at all. UCK...

But to throw the baby out because it's ugly isn't something I am in favor of. It may the kid who grows up to be the doctor that finds the cure for cancer or heart disease!

[wrldcoupe4]

Most of these precast concrete building are unattractive in person. Manchester is filling up with them. I agree that there are very modest design changes at street level that can make this more attractive at the pedestrian scale and don’t understand what’s so offensive about trying to improve them versus settling for utter mediocrity. Building mid rise precast concrete buildings won’t make Richmond “catch up” to other cities. Mid rise precast concrete buildings didn’t make banks move to Charlotte or bring tech jobs to Raleigh. Richmond has been held back by a lot of things - Dillon Rule state, annexation moratorium, independent city status, old racial divides, and trying to be other places.  Despite all that, Richmond is a fun, quirky, and comfortable city to live in. It has an urban fabric most southern cities can’t compete with. It has a new sense of pride, identity, and direction, which seems difficult for old timers to understand who’ve spend decades dogging it all while under the guise of being a “booster.”

[rjp212]

You can blame the Centennial Towers on a change in lending requirements from a housing induced recession.  Trust me it's better to have an empty lot than a half built building that was shut down because of a recession.  Even the new Centennial building better fits into the neighborhood, massing is appropriate and preserves some older buildings, than this building does. I never said it should be townhomes or something shorter. Massing doesn't just mean height, I'm referring to the overall bulk and long uninterrupted walls (this will have essentially one LONG cinder block wall at the street level).  My argument goes that they are small changes that can be done to this building that would be far more beneficial to the neighborhood than simply accepting it for density. But seeing as they aren't going to make any adjustments in it's current state, I would rather it sit vacant for a few more years (which it won't) than not push for better design. The city will not fall behind because of one apartment complex not being built, but a neighborhood/skyline can be tarnished for years to come because of bad urban design. 

Before we fall into the city vs city thread, what makes Richmond what we all love, is its storied growth.  Because we lost population for so long, we kept most of our historical core.  Charlotte (where I'm from), Raleigh and Atlanta have grown on a world scale but with it, lack identity and are having to go back and fix their neighborhoods.  They too went for what was tall and dense without pushing for urban design/pedestrian experiences.  These things can be somewhat fixed, but why not fix them now?  

Oh and I'm not a planner anymore. I gave it up for the private sector as a Realtor (more money and freedom).  However, with the current pandemic and challenges facing cities, it's renewed my interest.

Edited May 22, 2020 by rjp212

[rjp212]

Btw, this is what I love about this site.  A civil debate about urban planning/development.  My partner asked what I was doing and I said I was on my nerdy website.  Thanks for making this a "Hot Topic". 

Edited May 22, 2020 by rjp212

[I miss RVA]

35 minutes ago, rjp212 said:

You can blame the Centennial Towers on a change in lending requirements from a housing induced recession.  Trust me it's better to have an empty lot than a half built building that was shut down because of a recession.  Even the new Centennial building better fits into the neighborhood, massing is appropriate and preserves some older buildings, than this building does. I never said it should be townhomes or something shorter. Massing doesn't just mean height, I'm referring to the overall bulk and long uninterrupted walls (this will have essentially one LONG cinder block wall at the street level).  My argument goes that they are small changes that can be done to this building that would be far more beneficial to the neighborhood than simply accepting it for density. But seeing as they aren't going to make any adjustments in it's current state, I would rather it sit vacant for a few more years (which it won't) than not push for better design. The city will not fall behind because of one apartment complex not being built, but a neighborhood/skyline can be tarnished for years to come because of bad urban design. 

Before we fall into the city vs city thread, what makes Richmond what we all love, is its storied growth.  Because we lost population for so long, we kept most of our historical core.  Charlotte (where I'm from), Raleigh and Atlanta have grown on a world scale but with it, lack identity and are having to go back and fix their neighborhoods.  They too went for what was tall and dense without pushing for urban design/pedestrian experiences.  These things can be somewhat fixed, but why not fix them now?  

Oh and I'm not a planner anymore. I gave it up for the private sector as a Realtor (more money and freedom).  However, with the current pandemic and challenges facing cities, it's renewed my interest.

Your changes are excellent - and a shame they didn't think with that perspective. I'm still personally not willing to throw the building out and hope they dry up just because they lack more comprehensive design.

I strongly disagree with you regarding what's going up there now at the Centennial spot. I'm more than happy to trade what is currently there -- even the older buildings (if the 6th and Main building could be worked in - fine - the rest of them can go) ... to get those two 22-story towers. They by themselves would have been signature buildings on the skyline and the mixed-use residential density they would have brought are far and away a better use for that block than what sits there now. The "appropriate scale" argument is yet another of the catch phases that have been used when justifying limiting/prohibiting larger growth. The historical core - Jackson Ward, the Fan, etc., likely would still be with us even if Richmond had grown on the world scale that now even Raleigh is. (Yes, that's a burr in my saddle, believe me!!! Raleigh was a wide spot in the road not that long ago. Now she's pulling away and doing so quickly) ... Richmond could have done quite well in becoming a city more of the size of Atlanta or Charlotte - given all the cultural components in place, my best comparison of what Richmond COULD have become is Boston. The Hub has NOT sacrificed what makes her unique - yet she is not called The Hub for nothing! An no one  (outside of New York) will ever consider Boston anything but a big city.

True - incomplete/empty buildings would have been a DISASTER! There are cities around the world where that has happened. Never a good thing.

I get not wanting to trade cultural amenities for the drabness of an Atlanta or Charlotte - but to become much bigger AND have the amenities? To be something akin to Boston or a smaller Philadelphia? Whatever we had to do to get there would have been worth it in my opinion.

Edited May 22, 2020 by I miss RVA

[I miss RVA]

1 hour ago, wrldcoupe4 said:

Most of these precast concrete building are unattractive in person. Manchester is filling up with them. I agree that there are very modest design changes at street level that can make this more attractive at the pedestrian scale and don’t understand what’s so offensive about trying to improve them versus settling for utter mediocrity. Building mid rise precast concrete buildings won’t make Richmond “catch up” to other cities. Mid rise precast concrete buildings didn’t make banks move to Charlotte or bring tech jobs to Raleigh. Richmond has been held back by a lot of things - Dillon Rule state, annexation moratorium, independent city status, old racial divides, and trying to be other places.  Despite all that, Richmond is a fun, quirky, and comfortable city to live in. It has an urban fabric most southern cities can’t compete with. It has a new sense of pride, identity, and direction, which seems difficult for old timers to understand who’ve spend decades dogging it all while under the guise of being a “booster.”

I don't understand what "improvement" would come from scrapping the whole damn thing. If you want modest design changes/upgrades/improvements, have at it. We have no argument on that. Throw the whole thing out and wait for ... for what? The unknown?  SMH...

A bird in hand... no matter how ugly... 

To your point of "trying to be other places" - like Charleston or Savannah? Yeah, you're correct there. That's been a HUGE mistake for a long long time.

You are spot on about the multitude of factors that unfortunately have teamed to hold Richmond back. I won't argue that Richmond is quirky... sometimes PAINFULLY so. HUGE EYE ROLL!! No, I fully understand and appreciate the sense of pride, identity and direction. If anything, I'm saying FINALLY!!!! WTF TOOK SO LONG???

As for your "guise" remark - what you don't like my disguises? The masked marauder can't go around pretending to be a Richmond booster when in truth he's a Richmond basher and hater who really just wants to see the city get flushed down the commode of history and trampled upon by the steeds named "Charlotte" "Raleigh" and "Atlanta"? Maaaannnn.... I gotta work on my costume!! It ain't working!

Edited May 22, 2020 by I miss RVA

[Brent114]

I think this building is fine.  Isn’t great.  Isn’t terrible. 
 

1) This  style of building actually ages better than the likes of what was planned for Centennial Tower.   That “Georgian manor in the sky”  look is very 1990’s. 
 

2) In the scheme of things this scale is small. 
In addition to that, the geography of Manchester (and the scale of e flood wall)  dwarfs everything along the river.  The new mid-rises look tiny compared to the one at the foot of the Manchester Bridge even though they are the basically same height due to the elevation change.  As Manchester fills in behind this building, it will disappear on the skyline. 
 

3) I’m much more comfortable with uniform and understated residential architecture  than I am with statement pieces.  For example, Crystal City looks 100 times better than Covington KY, IMO.

4) it’s impossible to know what the actual colour scheme is.  On this drawing It is hard to tell what is shading and what is a colour change (that diagonal line across the right side may be the shadow of the wing on the left).   It doesn’t help that it looks like it was done in Microsoft Paint. 

[Icetera]

13 minutes ago, Brent114 said:

I think this building is fine.  Isn’t great.  Isn’t terrible. 
 

1) This  style of building actually ages better than the likes of what was planned for Centennial Tower.   That “Georgian manor in the sky”  look is very 1990’s. 
 

2) In the scheme of things this scale is small. 
In addition to that, the geography of Manchester (and the scale of e flood wall)  dwarfs everything along the river.  The new mid-rises look tiny compared to the one at the foot of the Manchester Bridge even though they are the basically same height due to the elevation change.  As Manchester fills in behind this building, it will disappear on the skyline. 
 

3) I’m much more comfortable with uniform and understated residential architecture  than I am with statement pieces.  For example, Crystal City looks 100 times better than Covington KY, IMO.

4) it’s impossible to know what the actual colour scheme is.  On this drawing It is hard to tell what is shading and what is a colour change (that diagonal line across the right side may be the shadow of the wing on the left).   It doesn’t help that it looks like it was done in Microsoft Paint. 

1) I actually agree on Centennial Tower.  I liked it only because it was a big deal for us back then but now we can do better.  I would have been fine with the style if it was a single tower.  Despite that, I still wish we ultimately got a tower in place of what is being developed now or at least never bulldozed what was there.

2-3) Exactly.  Between the flood-wall, rail-yard and elevation changes I think this building is appropriate for this urban cul-de-sac location.  We can hope for better as developments pop up along Commerce and beyond creating a blended, terraced Southern skyline.

[rjp212]

I have no problem admitting I’m wrong if the project turns out better than the renderings.  I doubt it will, but if it does, I will swallow my pride and buy you all drinks.  

[Icetera]

5 minutes ago, rjp212 said:

I have no problem admitting I’m wrong if the project turns out better than the renderings.  I doubt it will, but if it does, I will swallow my pride and buy you all drinks.  

There really is no wrong or right here.  Since that technically means you are not right, can we still get drinks?

[I miss RVA]

3 hours ago, Brent114 said:

I think this building is fine.  Isn’t great.  Isn’t terrible. 
 

1) This  style of building actually ages better than the likes of what was planned for Centennial Tower.   That “Georgian manor in the sky”  look is very 1990’s. 
 

2) In the scheme of things this scale is small. 
In addition to that, the geography of Manchester (and the scale of e flood wall)  dwarfs everything along the river.  The new mid-rises look tiny compared to the one at the foot of the Manchester Bridge even though they are the basically same height due to the elevation change.  As Manchester fills in behind this building, it will disappear on the skyline. 
 

3) I’m much more comfortable with uniform and understated residential architecture  than I am with statement pieces.  For example, Crystal City looks 100 times better than Covington KY, IMO.

4) it’s impossible to know what the actual colour scheme is.  On this drawing It is hard to tell what is shading and what is a colour change (that diagonal line across the right side may be the shadow of the wing on the left).   It doesn’t help that it looks like it was done in Microsoft Paint. 

Brent - I agree with you 100% on all points.  The Georgian Manor in the sky - that is spot on and absolutely hilarious!! Yeah - VERY 1990s!

Your second point is something I think we tend to overlook or forget - that flood wall is HUGE and a 12-story building located there does get dwarfed. Looking at South Falls from the north, and even the 14-story building looks "small" with the flood wall in front of it, whereas looking at it from the south, and its size seems to stand out more.

My biggest thing here is just keep the bloody momentum going! Keep people -- residents -- businesses -- pouring into Manchester. It's starting to take on that really urban look and feel more akin to a Baltimore or Brooklyn or Boston - and the 40-something percent growth in population during the last 10 years is epic. Hoping for MUCH more in the coming years!

[I miss RVA]

2 hours ago, Icetera said:

1) I actually agree on Centennial Tower.  I liked it only because it was a big deal for us back then but now we can do better.  I would have been fine with the style if it was a single tower.  Despite that, I still wish we ultimately got a tower in place of what is being developed now or at least never bulldozed what was there.

2-3) Exactly.  Between the flood-wall, rail-yard and elevation changes I think this building is appropriate for this urban cul-de-sac location.  We can hope for better as developments pop up along Commerce and beyond creating a blended, terraced Southern skyline.

Well said all the way around, my friend. Regarding Centennial Tower vs what's going up there now - I just wish we were getting a 20-plus story  residential building there instead of a six-story in-fill building.  Aside from having yet another spire to admire (nice rhyme, eh?) slightly west of the "bulk" of the skyline (when looking from the south), it would extend Main Street's verticality westward AND bring people LIVING downtown. That's one of the cool things about the bigger cities of the northeast and a city like Chicago - residential towers stand within walking distance of office towers (or even right next door or across the street) ... A six-story infill project there is a cap-gun pop where there could have been a nice cannon shot.

Honestly, it's like the Locks 321 site - I'm glad there's a 12-story residential building there - but in truth, I would have FAR preferred the 21-story glass tower originally proposed NOT because of the architecture, but because of the impact. Height AND people presence, whether Sun Trust anchored it -- or part of it was used for a hotel OR residences. The current Locks building is honestly a better fit in Manchester or along Broad near VCU or in Scott's Addition - BUT I'm glad it's there instead of a vacant lot -- because while Richmond IS on fire development wise, it still has not yet proven it can bounce back from a recession the way larger cities innately can. Economic slowdowns impact NOVA only so much. Or New York. Or Chicago. Or Atlanta. Richmond - seems to either wind up with vacant lots or vastly downsized projects. Neither option is a good one if we want to really ramp up and grow.

I'm PRAYING that the economic fallout from Covid is minimal (though that's probably fool's gold of hope) because Richmond's been on SUCH a great roll these last 5 to 10 years. I honestly hope every single project proposed gets built and that more are unveiled. R-Town as Boom Town has a nice feel to it, doesn't it?

2 hours ago, Icetera said:

There really is no wrong or right here.  Since that technically means you are not right, can we still get drinks?

YES!!! CHEERS, MATE!

2 hours ago, rjp212 said:

I have no problem admitting I’m wrong if the project turns out better than the renderings.  I doubt it will, but if it does, I will swallow my pride and buy you all drinks.  

I don't think you're wrong about wanting design improvement. You have fantastic ideas (too bad you weren't connected with this development because you could have integrated it nicely I think without sacrificing the size, height, density, etc.) -- and either way, I'll gladly raise a glass with you, sir! CHEERS!! 

[Richmonder23]

Bye bye view from Legend's

https://richmondbizsense.com/2020/05/28/riverfront-land-in-manchester-sells-for-4m-per-acre-twin-tower-apartment-project-planned/