Manchester Development

[DowntownCoruscant]

Yeah, it’s sub-optimal. Need some big stilts for one of those events. 

[asies]

I think you can have both park/public space and dining areas/boat ramps that draw people there for more than just hiking. Any large development that would occupy that island would be on such large stilts that positive street engagement would be difficult. And don't get me wrong, I love development but amenities attract the people that will bring more development (the more desirable the place, the more demand to live in and build there) and I think a balance that expands the public access to the river while bringing even more amenities is very doable.

[flaneur]

@eandslee your dream is exactly what Columbus, GA did and it's a big success. Great rapids. But the river is narrower than the James. Still, could be something to explore. 

https://www.mensjournal.com/adventure/build-columbus-georgia/

[Richmonopoly]

5 hours ago, Icetera said:

I wish we could get something engaging the river other than just parks, and I say this as someone who uses the James River Park System very regularly.  A landlocked city should not be primarily parkland and we should be focusing on getting some life on the river for everyone, especially after failing with Echo Harbor.  Boathouse and Island Shrimp Company should not be the only river-adjacent eateries in a city with such a prominent gem.  We can extend the parks into the counties where dense development is not as necessary for urban life.

I walked the canal with a friend from NC yesterday and we both imagined the canal area becoming the site of this. 
 

Casa del Barco recently renovated their outdoor seating and it looks amazing.  
 

We envisioned the power plant with similar restaurants and shops as well as the plaza around Riverside on The James.

We envisioned the Lady Hat Byrd building being sold by Carmax and reopening the canal to restaurants and shops.  There is a coffee and wine spot in the Vistas and an adjacent spot is being upfitted (hopefully for a restaurant) at the moment.  

The spaces filling the old First Union building would add more space as would the soon-to-be vacant La Diff store.

There is so much potential to make the canal more of a destination.

I hope the three towers will help jumpstart this.
 

 

[wrldcoupe4]

1 hour ago, DowntownCoruscant said:

Yeah, it’s sub-optimal. Need some big stilts for one of those events. 

It's more than stilts, depending on the use. I remember hearing at some point that certain uses would require an additional emergency vehicle crossing that would be at a grade elevated about the floodzone (and floodwall) because the Mayo Bridge elevation is below potential flood levels. The logistics and costs associated with that seem crazy. I also remember hearing at one point that the flood wall calculations take into account the volume of existing structures, so nothing new could increase the existing displacement. An example, if you were to scrape the existing structures, anything new could not displace more volume that what was there before, otherwise it impacts the flood wall effectiveness. I think the Army Corp of Engineers weighs in heavily on this.  I'm sure I botched that explanation a little bit, but you should get the drift. 

As much as I think it would be really cool to have some commercial application on the island, reality is probably something very limited with the balance being recreational opportunities, but something more than a boat slip and some trails.

Edited April 12, 2022 by wrldcoupe4

[DowntownCoruscant]

Yeah, sorry. That was a dumb joke. The humor didn’t convey.

[I miss RVA]

4 hours ago, wrldcoupe4 said:

I also remember hearing at one point that the flood wall calculations take into account the volume of existing structures, so nothing new could increase the existing displacement. An example, if you were to scrape the existing structures, anything new could not displace more volume that what was there before, otherwise it impacts the flood wall effectiveness. I think the Army Corp of Engineers weighs in heavily on this. 

Reality is probably something very limited with the balance being recreational opportunities, but something more than a boat slip and some trails.

Good stuff, Coupe.

Effectiveness of the flood wall vis a vis structures on Mayo Island: We never really think of that part, but it makes sense. Any additional water displacement caused by island development of a certain level of intensity would have the reverse effect and cause greater pressure on the flood walls on both sides of the river. Sadly, there goes any thoughts of building some form of island flood barrier and fortifying/raising the elevation of certain portions to be able to hold commercial development.

Something more than a boat slip and trails: AMEN! We have more than enough trails. Not that I'm against recreational opportunities, but in some ways I think the city went wayyyyy overboard on this push to "keep the river natural" to the extent that they did immediately downtown. I seem to recall seeing plans way back in the late '60s and early '70s in which the islands - such as Belle Isle and Mayo Island (maybe even Brown's Island as well) were positioned for commercial use - even residential development (could you imagine high rises? Those were in the plans) and developing that entire section of the river into something of a multi-location marina. I'm not sure, but I'm imagining that to do that at least some of the big rocks might have had to have been taken out - and I know - there go the rapids. Whatever - it never came to pass, which at least is partially a shame. I would love to have seen what could have happened there.

I know I'm WAAAAAAYY in the minority on this one (but I'm not much of an "outdoors/water/boating/canoeing", etc., fan at all - it's just not for me) - I would have much preferred a more urban development of the riverfront. RVA still would have her rapids farther upstream. Plenty of rapids. But right there around the Manchester Bridge area - too bad we didn't figure out how to make development work where there was clearly a push and plans to do so 50-plus years ago. No doubt - the Camille and Agnes floods just three years apart made folks rethink a LOT of these plans. Still - I can't  help but wonder how it might have looked had the city figured it out (and had been able to afford it - I'm sure cost played a part, too)

Edited April 13, 2022 by I miss RVA

[wrldcoupe4]

4 hours ago, DowntownCoruscant said:

Yeah, sorry. That was a dumb joke. The humor didn’t convey.

Lol - really that’s the only way to do it though. Knock down everything on the island and then build a big development on top of a large parking podium that sets the occupyable floors above the flood level. The stilts would be equal to the footprint of the existing buildings. Then from that level extend an emergency access bridge to the north side of the flood wall.  Build buildings to the heavens. I just don’t see how someone pays a big number for the island and then also pays for all the extra infrastructure before they build something that provide an ROI. I don’t think it’s economically feasible, but it’s technically possible. 

Edited April 13, 2022 by wrldcoupe4

[123fakestreet]

https://richmondbizsense.com/2022/04/13/mayo-island-hits-the-market-for-19m/

 

RBS take on it. Doesn't say anything about it being below flood plain or otherwise undevelopable. Says there were some plans in 2007 to develop office, retail and residential that fell through, and currently some interested parties this time around as well.

[Wahoo 07]

While I have no knowledge of building in a flood plain or what is even possible on Mayo Island given that, I would love to see a promenade on the north shore of it with kiosk vendors.  Richmond doesn't have much of this and it would be a good addition.  Hopefully more substantial development will happen too.

[wrldcoupe4]

2 hours ago, 123fakestreet said:

https://richmondbizsense.com/2022/04/13/mayo-island-hits-the-market-for-19m/

 

RBS take on it. Doesn't say anything about it being below flood plain or otherwise undevelopable. Says there were some plans in 2007 to develop office, retail and residential that fell through, and currently some interested parties this time around as well.

It's 100% in a floodplain. https://consapps.dcr.virginia.gov/VFRIS/

The elevation is well below the height of the flood wall (drive through the gates to access the Mayo bridge). It doesn't mean it is undevelopable (there are some industrial uses and parking today), but it creates a significantly different risk profile that creates a scenario which in some combination limits uses, limits interested parties/investors/lenders, and/or significantly increases costs.

[123fakestreet]

20 minutes ago, wrldcoupe4 said:

It's 100% in a floodplain. https://consapps.dcr.virginia.gov/VFRIS/

The elevation is well below the height of the flood wall (drive through the gates to access the Mayo bridge). It doesn't mean it is undevelopable (there are some industrial uses and parking today), but it creates a significantly different risk profile that creates a scenario which in some combination limits uses, limits interested parties/investors/lenders, and/or significantly increases costs.

I believe you, that was always my understanding as well, but based on the article it doesn't seem like a major hurdle to development or you think they'd at least mention it.  What they do mention is that not too long ago there was development planned, and not some special industrial use but typical mixed use we see everywhere else in the city, leading the reader to even further believe there's not much restriction on what could be built there.  Maybe that's just poor journalism on RBS's part.

Riverside on the James is built practically in the river if you've ever seen it from the pipeline.  I would expect somewhat similar construction for anything built on Mayo island with first floor being parking that flood water could flow through.

 

Edited April 13, 2022 by 123fakestreet

[I miss RVA]

7 hours ago, wrldcoupe4 said:

It's 100% in a floodplain. https://consapps.dcr.virginia.gov/VFRIS/

The elevation is well below the height of the flood wall (drive through the gates to access the Mayo bridge). It doesn't mean it is undevelopable (there are some industrial uses and parking today), but it creates a significantly different risk profile that creates a scenario which in some combination limits uses, limits interested parties/investors/lenders, and/or significantly increases costs.

Great website, Coupe! Now - in looking at the listed elevation at various points of the river, the question I have is: the points at where where there are flood walls (downtown/Shockoe Bottom and Manchester): are the heights listed taking the height of the flood wall at a given location into account? Farther upstream, it's obviously based on topography. Case in point: I grew up in Granite (also called colloquially Granite Hills - smack in between Westover Hills and Stratford Hills) - and the elevation closest to where I lived is at the 98-and-99-foot mark -- which makes perfect sense because overlooks from Riverside Drive near the CSX A-Line bridge were steep cliffs that look like going down the side of a mountain (and a nearly 100-foot drop to the river is a sizeable distance!)

Mayo Island is listed at 36 feet on the western side of the 14th Street Bridge - and 35 feet on the eastern side of the bridge. Does that account for the heights of both flood walls?

If I recall correctly, the 1972 Agness flood line depth reached or just slightly exceeded 36 feet at City Locks (flood stage there was 9 feet at the time) ... Camille came in a little bit lower three years earlier. Again, which makes sense - the 14th Street Bridge was completely submerged by the Agnes flood, where as in 1969, the Camille floodwaters came RIGHT up to the bottom of the bridge deck but didn't cover the bridge. 

Either way - the RTD articles I posted a day or so ago indicated that Mayo Island and the 14th Street Bridge are both below the 100-year line and sits completely within the flood plain. All of the BIG RVA floods (and the three that stick out in my mind are Camille in '69, Agnes in '72 and the 1985 flood) - submerged the island, if not completely almost completely.

Edited April 14, 2022 by I miss RVA

[I miss RVA]

Excellent news from the newly-built Hydro building on the Manchester riverfront: it's not only starting to bring in plenty of new residents, it's filled out its commercial space already! This is exactly the kind of synergy between residential and commercial needed now to help Manchester take off as a vibrant, urban core neighborhood. VERY glad to see businsess starting to populate the new residential buildings on the ground floors. Excellent trend that I hope and pray continues apace.

From Richmond BizSense:

https://richmondbizsense.com/2022/04/14/new-hydro-building-in-manchester-flush-with-commercial-tenants/

 

[123fakestreet]

30 minutes ago, I miss RVA said:

Excellent news from the newly-built Hydro building on the Manchester riverfront: it's not only starting to bring in plenty of new residents, it's filled out its commercial space already! This is exactly the kind of synergy between residential and commercial needed now to help Manchester take off as a vibrant, urban core neighborhood. VERY glad to see businsess starting to populate the new residential buildings on the ground floors. Excellent trend that I hope and pray continues apace.

From Richmond BizSense:

https://richmondbizsense.com/2022/04/14/new-hydro-building-in-manchester-flush-with-commercial-tenants/

 

 

OK. now do the SS silo.

[eandslee]

1 hour ago, 123fakestreet said:

OK. now do the SS silo.

For real!  I'm ready to see the plan for this!  Come on, release the renderings!!

[I miss RVA]

6 hours ago, 123fakestreet said:

OK. now do the SS silo.

AMEN, brother! From your keyboad to God's eyes! 

[rjp212]

CBRE has 1005 Commerce Road on the market for redevelopment.  There's a little nugget of information in the summary

"1005 Commerce Rd., is nestled in a growing community including a 9-story apartment building planned on 3.47 acres to the West"

Any insight on what that could be? 

1005 Commerce Road

 

[eandslee]

1 hour ago, rjp212 said:

CBRE has 1005 Commerce Road on the market for redevelopment.  There's a little nugget of information in the summary

"1005 Commerce Rd., is nestled in a growing community including a 9-story apartment building planned on 3.47 acres to the West"

Any insight on what that could be? 

1005 Commerce Road

 

Not sure, but 9 stories isn't tall enough in a TOD-1 zoned area!  Would love to see that floor level topped out at 12 if at all possible - every time!  Nevertheless, I'm anxious to see what that project is and what it will look like.

Also, anxiously waiting to see the renderings for the Southern States Silos.  This one seems to be going very slow and has me worried a bit.  Seems to me that if the market is hot enough (and I think it is) there would be no problem getting this project going as soon as possible.  Something is holding it up and I'm just not sure what it is.  However, I don't want them to sacrifice height to get the project going sooner.  I'd rather they wait to get the right project and the best height for this highly visible location.  So, I can be patient.  Maybe we'll see something in the next week or so...fingers crossed.

[I miss RVA]

3 hours ago, eandslee said:

Not sure, but 9 stories isn't tall enough in a TOD-1 zoned area!  Would love to see that floor level topped out at 12 if at all possible - every time!  Nevertheless, I'm anxious to see what that project is and what it will look like.

Also, anxiously waiting to see the renderings for the Southern States Silos.  This one seems to be going very slow and has me worried a bit.  Seems to me that if the market is hot enough (and I think it is) there would be no problem getting this project going as soon as possible.  Something is holding it up and I'm just not sure what it is.  However, I don't want them to sacrifice height to get the project going sooner.  I'd rather they wait to get the right project and the best height for this highly visible location.  So, I can be patient.  Maybe we'll see something in the next week or so...fingers crossed.

Any number of things could be holding this one up - construction costs, supply chain problems, materials shortages, huge, ridiculous, unwarranted delays in the city planning/permit office - you name it. I agree, though, that the longer this goes without some kind of movement, the more concerned I grow that this thing stagnates. The 512 Hull project stagnated and the resulting shoebox building that is maybe -- at best -- 25 or 30% of the size of the original proposal is not even worth wasting time and money to build it IMNSHO. And I worry that River's Edge II has TOTALLY stagnated - to the point that it's completely off the table (if I recall correctly the developer was expressing a "lack of desire" to have to dig in a actually build the two buildings, and this was early last year, yes?)... 

I say this all the time - I'm more concerned right now with ground being broken on projects we KNOW about in the pipeline getting underway than I am about announcements about new projects that are farther back at the entry to the pipeline. Let's get built what's been put into the pipeline over the last two years - and then, while they're rising and making all of us proud, we can start clammoring for new announcements. I like renderings as much as anyone on here - but if they never leave the paper (or nowadays, the computer screen), they're nothing more than pretty pictures, and not one new resident will move into the city and not one additional penny of taxes will flow into the city's coffers from lots of pretty pictures.

Let's get shovels into the ground, dirt turned, holes dug, footings poured, floors stacked one-atop-the-other-atop-the-other-atop-the-other (wash, rinse, repeat!!) and project after project after project built! 

[ancientcarpenter]

12 hours ago, eandslee said:

Also, anxiously waiting to see the renderings for the Southern States Silos.  This one seems to be going very slow and has me worried a bit.  

 

I hope this is taking a while to plan because they are detailing it out... this is a great sign in my view as maybe it alludes to them trying to build something signature. It is quite the location and will act as the "entrance view" to anyone coming from i95 to/through RVA.... and an "exit view" for anyone going the other way.

In my view (I hope I'm right) if they wanted to plant any old rectangle they could have picked out from any developer's catalog they could have easily just done that and been on their merry way. Crossing fingers!

Edited April 18, 2022 by ancientcarpenter

[whw53]

On 3/26/2021 at 1:25 PM, whw53 said:

Another TOD-1 rezoning began its journey through city hall this week - Application to take following  industrial property from M-2  to TOD-1 at Commerce & Dinwiddie.

Was this parcel part of either the 1st Pamunkey site or the Wind Creek site, weren't they both right around here?

Also LLC listed under city parcel mapper is registered to an address off Hancock St. in Carver - that coincides with the contact info for Larson Development - a developer that seems to specialize in historic renovations. Honestly, I hope that's not the case here - let's scrub the factory building - it's only a single story, not a keeper in my book. http://www.larson-development.com/our-mission/

 

@rjp212 I think it is related to the zoning case above from last year which successfully took 1003 to TOD-1

Edited April 18, 2022 by whw53

[whw53]

Also - I'm amped about 9 stories here if true - even with rezoning I did not anticipate reaching the zoning height max...plenty of other reasons to pursue TOD-1 so seeing above 5 stories here is big - if we are getting 9 - 10 stories this far south look at all the similar set blocks between here and hull - think of that replicated throughout that grid between river and commerce. 9-10 now only points higher and higher in 5 years time. I guess what I'm saying is this is a high bar for such a remote pocket of Manchester (remote from an urbanist standpoint )- the only other examples of mixed reuse in the immediate area is the rehab 'Spa Lofts' project and the New Manchester Flats - both 1 or 2 story rehabs. To jump to 9 now  when most projects in Scott's Addition can't seem to break 5-7  stories?? big deal 

Edited April 18, 2022 by whw53

[I miss RVA]

16 minutes ago, whw53 said:

Also - I'm amped about 9 stories here if true - even with rezoning I did not anticipate reaching the zoning height max...plenty of other reasons to pursue TOD-1 so seeing above 5 stories here is big - if we are getting 9 - 10 stories this far south look at all the similar set blocks between here and hull - think of that replicated throughout that grid between river and commerce. 9-10 now only points higher and higher in 5 years time. I guess what I'm saying is this is a high bar for such a remote pocket of Manchester (remote from an urbanist standpoint )- the only other examples of mixed reuse in the immediate area is the rehab 'Spa Lofts' project and the New Manchester Flats - both 1 or 2 story rehabs. To jump to 9 now  when most projects in Scott's Addition can't seem to break 5-7  stories?? big deal 

Agreed! Mind you, Manchester has long had the lead over Scott's when it comes to height. Even the one butchered and the one as-yet-unrealized project (512 Hull & Rivers Edge II, respectively) were supposed to reach 12 and 11 stories respectively. And this with two 10-story buildings and the two South Falls I buildings (checking in at 14 and 12 stories) already standing. Scott's has managed the Icon at 12 stories - and that's it. So far, nothing bigger even in the pipeline.

All the more impressive when you consider that South Fall's II and (if built) III will hit the tale of the tape at 14 and 11 stories... the Silos project has been projected at anywhere from 17 to 20 stories ... and who knows if we'll ever see that gorgeous 16-story building rise at 700 Commerce Road (where there's been much discussion of a grocery store) - but if so, Manchester will continue developing her own separate skyline. 

That said, it makes sense that the bar might start getting pushed higher, even for projects outside the current "core" zone of development in "lower" Manchester (lower defined by the lower-numbered streets closest to the river - i.e., anything INSIDE/north of Commerce Road.)

[whw53]

A ZCL file today reveals that an entity by the name of Avery Hall Investments is  the prospective purchaser of the Rivers Towers South 2 site and entitlements at 301 W 6th. See attachments tab to the portal link below. 

https://energov.richmondgov.com/EnerGov_Prod/SelfService/richmondvaprod#/plan/da5be203-ec9a-4cd1-a3c1-f116b929cfe1

https://www.averyhallinvestments.com/

peep  that portfolio -- wow. 

 

Edited April 26, 2022 by whw53