Manchester Development

[Shakman]

3 hours ago, blopp1234 said:

 @I miss RVA might need to write a thank you card to the NIMBYs for the increased height! 

Be sure to include a box of Kleenex.

[I miss RVA]

Outstanding reconfig by Avery Hall!! Yes -  @blopp1234& @ShakmanI should start sending hand-written thank you notes (and a trial-size packet of Kleenex) to all the NIMBYs, particularly Gott, for the increase in height. This is great news!

HOWEVERRRRRRRRRRRRR...

Our good friend - Professor Slipek - in his column in today's RBS is foreshadowing something I find to be VERY troubling: Apparently there is now an organized push by the Virginia Department of Historic Resources, the city and the Historic Richmond Foundation (UGH!! choke me - I cannot stand this organization!!!!) to develop and implement what he calls an "ambitious citywide preservation plan" - and a large focus of the upcoming study, planning and implementation will be on lower Manchester. JUST LIKE THIS FREAKIN' CITY TO WANT TO THROW ICE WATER ON A ROARING FIRE OF DEVELOPMENT!!! JESUS CHRIST!!!

Slipek is openly calling for saving the Silos (Because OF COURSE he is!!) - despite the fact that papers have been filed to demo the site - and we know that a large residential building is planned. Is it Hourigan who is developing this property? They'd better get off their bloody keesters and get this project going BEFORE this damn draconian preservation process does EXACTLY WHAT IT HAS DONE TO RICHMOND FOR THE PAST 50 YEARS - SQUASH DEVELOPMENT!!!

While I'm thrilled about Avery Hall's plan - I am BEYOND P.O.'d about this preservation plan. WE DON'T NEED IT!! THIS IS THE VERY THING YOU HAVE SEEN ME RANT ABOUT ON THIS SITE BEFORE AS SOMETHING THAT HAS HELD RICHMOND BACK SO BADLY!! WE HAVE ENOUGH OF RICHMOND PRESERVED ALREADY UNDER LOCK AND KEY - WHAT MORE DO WE NEED???

You can read the disgusting commentary here:

https://richmondbizsense.com/2022/09/09/is-help-finally-on-the-way-for-preservation-starved-manchester/ 

Edited September 9, 2022 by I miss RVA

[Hike]

1 hour ago, I miss RVA said:

WE HAVE ENOUGH OF RICHMOND PRESERVED ALREADY UNDER LOCK AND KEY - WHAT MORE DO WE NEED???

Ahh, silos, not sure we have any old silos. 

[Flood Zone]

I'd save the old horse stables building before the silos.

[Jordon]

14 hours ago, RVA-Is-The-Best said:

Interesting.

The developers for the two towers that would block Legend Brewery are tweaking the plan, and in a twist that I certainly didn't expect:

Of course, the curmudgeons over there at Legend still seem grumpy and qualified with their 'praise' as ever; this is their [comical] two cents per BizSense:

Well, anything under three stories is just not good for Urban Planet, so sorry there Dave.

 

https://richmondbizsense.com/2022/09/09/developers-tweak-two-tower-plan-to-preserve-legend-brewings-view/

 

To add on

[I miss RVA]

4 hours ago, Flood Zone said:

I'd save the old horse stables building before the silos.

Preamble: @Flood ZoneThis is NOT in any way, shape or form aimed at you - PLEASE KNOW THAT!!! And tbh, I agree with you - that between the two, I'd also pick the horse stables building instead of the Silos. Heck - Bruce Milam remarked in the RBS commentary that the Silos need to go, calling them an "eyesore". Either way - I'm not jumping on you - rather, pushing back against what appears to be happening and venting some serious frustration that has built up all afternoon and has gotten my blood pressure elevated to a place it probably shouldn't be from a health standpoint. Right, wrong or otherwise, Prof. Slipek's column in today's RBS made me absolutely FURIOUS, to the point that I yelled at the computer monitor - "NOOOO!!!!: and quite frankly wanted to throw something. 

Just wanted to be clear about that before continuing.

That said:

Can it (the horse stable building) be saved WITHOUT truncating/precluding MAJOR new development? If so, then fine. Save it, if it's not in the way and won't truncate or preclude major redevelopment there. But if it's in the way and the developer can't proceed with it there - then sorry, it needs to go. Period. Mic drop.

I don't have a problem with saving a building like that here and there (again, provided it does not derail a development) - but what I DO have a MAJOR problem with is overlaying draconian O&H district regulations across Manchester (and other hot development spots or potential development spots in the city)... regs that say not only can you NOT remove this building if it's in the way of a larger development, you can't build a significantly larger development anywhere NEAR this building because said new, larger building might, somehow "detract" from the "character" of this old building (when it's been proven in cities like Philadelphia, Boston, New York, Chicago, that the beauty and uniqueness of preserved structures are actually ENHANCED when contrasted to nearby newer/larger development). So what happens is: a developer who might have put up a large building on this site either 1.) can't build because this old building is in the way but God-forbid it be removed - or - 2.) has to adapt the new development around said old building and if that's the case, 3.) said adaptation must be "complimentary" to the "historic character" of the old building - which invariably means severe height and mass restrictions. Depending on the parcel and location of buildings like these, it becomes untenable for some projects to even be built, and as such, that block goes undeveloped. And WORSE - any development of adjacent properties to such an old building again must "adapt" to the "historic" "character" of the old building -- which again, usually means severe height and massing restrictions.

What's more - this is always accompanied by the call to place greater emphasis on "adaptive reuse" over and above new development. Okay - fine - in some cases, it makes sense. But NOT ACROSS THE BOARD AS THE RULE.   AS THE EXCEPTION, YES. BUT NOT AS THE SET-IN-STONE RULE! Some already are suggesting adaptive re-use for the Silos. REALLY??? Based on what we know Hourigan is suggesting it will build there? I'm sorry - but I FAR rather have 500-plus residential units - and A GREATER CONCENTRATION OF POPULATION DENSITY THERE - than those damn Silos!! Or take a four-story "historic" (by new designations, if the plan spoken of, GOD-FORBID, comes to pass) building. Maybe it can hold 30 or 40 or even 50 apartments. HOW IS THAT BETTER for the health and vitality of Manchester if it STOPS ALTOGETHER a developer from removing it and replacing it with, say, a 12-to-15 story building that holds 250 or 350 apartments? (And this is regardless of whether the old building occupies just a portion of the land the developer has purchased or the entire parcel) HOW IS THAT BETTER ECONOMICALLY FOR MANCHESTER? (Or for Richmond as a whole?)

If saving specific old buildings would not either truncate or flat-out preclude large-scale development, all well and good. But unfortunately, as has been proven time and again in this city over AT LEAST the past five, six, seven decades, the preservation uber alles mentality and the imposition of utterly draconian regulations in fabricated "historic" districts SEVERELY limits what can be built in an area. And don't try to tell me that's not the case. Look at Jackson Ward. Does ANYONE on this board honestly think a building like The Admiral would have a snowball's chance in Hell of being built INSIDE the actual hard-boundary-drawn JWO&HD? IF SO, then I want some of what you're smoking because we have a couple of dozen entries on the Jackson Ward thread detailing exactly how the developer of a simple FIVE STORY apartment building has been bending over backwards, jumping through flaming hoops, to get a small building like his built - and even then, it's not good enough for the preservationists there. Methinks they'd rather preserve the damn surface lot that would be transformed into this beautiful building than to have new people living there, adding to the vitality, energy and value to the neighborhood. My GOD - the pearl clutching! The "scale" is "inappropriate" .. the façade is "wrong" or "incompatible" ... JESUS CHRIST GIVE ME A BREAK!

Is there any wonder why Richmond went from being the 57th largest city in the country in the 1970 census to being the 98th largest by 2020? While many of our direct competitors (who were legitimate "peers" 50 years ago) have BLOWN BY US, some of whom are now approaching 1 MILLION CITY POPULATION??? (and many more times that in their metros.)  (And yes - I realize some of them either merged with counties  - or - have the freedom to annex neighboring counties and have been doing so for half a century now - I get that the physical land-space dynamics are vastly different as RVA is completely land-locked with no recourse for annexation, etc...)

And as for the counter-argument of "if we allow development to go on unchecked, (WTF does THAT mean???) we won't have any old/"historic" buildings left."  I'm sorry - back in the day, George Carlin had a PERFECT one-word response to that kind of assertion that, because this is a family show, I cannot repeat here. Suffice it to say it begins with the word "BULL" and he would usually YELL it. The argument that developers would just come into Richmond en masse and bulldoze to the ground every single old building, whether legitimately "historic" or not is utterly non-sensical. IT WON'T HAPPEN! The city -- and appropriately so -- has already preserved TREMENDOUS numbers of old buildings, particularly in legacy neighborhoods like Jackson Ward, Church Hill, etc. (whither Fulton Bottom????)  In fact, they've done SUCH a good job that there's just no way that anything like this will EVER happen in our lifetimes or in the lifetimes of multiple upon multiple generations of our progeny. Byrd Park ain't gonna get converted into condos. The Fan won't be obliterated and replaced by street after street of Burj Khalifa-sized buildings. This argument that we will lose EVERYTHING is simply UNREALISTIC and NONSENSICAL to the point of being a total FARSE. It's a soapbox that preservationists have used for decades - and frankly it's time-worn and needs to be shelved. THE CITY WILL NEVER GET BULLDOZED AND TURNED INTO ORBIT CITY (home of the Jetsons). Let's keep this real, shall we?

Manchester is ON FIRE with big development right now - and the VERY LAST THING we need is to have the VDHR, the city and - gag me - the idiotic HRF - come in and suddenly throw up roadblocks to any and everything that might get built down the road. As I said earlier -- Manchester -- and for that matter, the city writ large -- is ON A ROLL. We don't need the retentives in this city coming along and unleashing a massive firehose of ice water to douse the flames of progress and development here because, "God forbid, we might lose this building or that building and the character of the city will be changed..."  I've seen this pattern before - and it's as much a part of what has held this city back as what @wrldcoupe4 discussed the other day (his outstanding and spot-on correct four or five points on what has seriously stifled Richmond's growth). Frankly, these people (the preservationists) need to stop the pearl clutching and accept the fact that Richmond is GROWING. It is a CITY. CITIES GROW. THEY CHANGE. THEY EVOLVE. And, sometimes that means letting go of the past. Which in Richmond's case, honestly is not a bad thing at all.

We already have enough preservation, damnit!

LET MY CITY GROW!!!

Okay - gotta breathe - my blood pressure is THROUGH THE ROOF right now. 

Edited September 9, 2022 by I miss RVA

[blopp1234]

I for one would like to see the silos saved, but only if they can be repurposed and rehabbed. They may not be a 20 story glass residential tower but they are pretty similar in height and a lot more iconic. Not many other cities have large grain silos basically as part of their skyline (outside of Buffalo). Saving the silos would have been a very visible monument to Manchester past as an industrial which is very quickly being erased. I’m not a fan of saving some 1 or 2 story brick or metal warehouse but a building that iconic that has been visible to travelers and has almost served as a gateway to the southern us is far different than the carriage building which tbh I didn’t even know existed prior to this article. While some might feel they are an ugly eyesore, they are more unique and cool looking than any skyscraper Charlotte, Raleigh, Austin, Atlanta or any other sunbelt city has in their skyline or will ever have.
 

Gives off major Brooklyn vibes. 
 

Sadly for me and any others that find old industrial architecture to be more beautiful than any all glass building, they likely won’t be able to be saved, but if they were able to repurpose them as apartments or a hotel, I’d be the first in line to stop any bulldozer or wrecking ball from destroying them.

[I miss RVA]

1 hour ago, blopp1234 said:

I for one would like to see the silos saved, but only if they can be repurposed and rehabbed. They may not be a 20 story glass residential tower but they are pretty similar in height and a lot more iconic. Not many other cities have large grain silos basically as part of their skyline (outside of Buffalo). Saving the silos would have been a very visible monument to Manchester past as an industrial which is very quickly being erased. I’m not a fan of saving some 1 or 2 story brick or metal warehouse but a building that iconic that has been visible to travelers and has almost served as a gateway to the southern us is far different than the carriage building which tbh I didn’t even know existed prior to this article. While some might feel they are an ugly eyesore, they are more unique and cool looking than any skyscraper Charlotte, Raleigh, Austin, Atlanta or any other sunbelt city has in their skyline or will ever have.
 

Gives off major Brooklyn vibes. 
 

Sadly for me and any others that find old industrial architecture to be more beautiful than any all glass building, they likely won’t be able to be saved, but if they were able to repurpose them as apartments or a hotel, I’d be the first in line to stop any bulldozer or wrecking ball from destroying them.

My only problem with it is - where does it stop? We save one because it's unique. Then another one. Then YET another one...  Oh - but THIS one is cool too. Before you know it - it becomes impossible for developers to come in a build anything of ANY kind of size/substance because we suddenly have "character" or "uniqueness" that HAS to be preserved AT ALL COSTS.

I mean - they can't ALL be saved, mate! SOME OF THEM HAVE TO GO!!!

Sooooooo... while keeping the silos would be cool on the one hand, there are already plans in place for a major residential building there. Had Hourigan not ever suggesting putting something big there - that would be one thing. But that Rubicon has been crossed, in my mind. Yeah - personally I'll miss seeing the Silos, it IS a part of my memories of Richmond - but at the same time, the city is changing - growing. Honestly - I don't want the Richmond of 2030 or 2040 or beyond to look like the Richmond of 1990 or 1970. If that means some buildings have to go - then so be it.

Again - I'm NOT at all in favor under ANY circumstances of placing aesthetics ahead of function. And that's what keeping the Silos would do - even if adaptively reused - what's it going to be used for? If residences (which I just flat out don't see) - how many people will live there? Maybe 50 or, at best, 100? I'd rather have 500 or more people living in a 20-story tower there. WAY better for Manchester's economy and vitality. 

I've said it before and I'll say it again - we need PEOPLE - and WAY WAY MORE PEOPLE than we have. We aren't going to get there saving every single old brick in this city!

Not only that - it's about MOMENTUM. WE HAVE MOMENTUM right now, momentum that we HAVEN'T had for -- maybe -- EVER! The city is ON A ROLL!! Manchester - is ON A ROLL!  WHY - I ask you - WHY for the LOVE OF GOD - would we want to blunt this momentum?? WHY??? Seriously - WHY??? Suddenly tell Hourigan - "oh sorry - you can't build here now - we have to save this... " ??? Or tell another developer - "sorry - we have to save that one, too... it can't be torn down...  or yet another... oh, so you can't afford to adaptive reuse the building? Oh well - guess you'll have to sell it then..." WHY would we do this??

Cities change. Or at least they're supposed to.

*        *        *  

Idk - maybe Richmond should just be shut down and a complete moratorium placed on all future development. Just preserve EVERYTHING - and disallow anything that will take away from the aesthetics - the "character" of old buildings, regardless of the economic impact on the city. Put up big signs: "Welcome to the living history museum that USED TO BE a city!!!"

Maybe build all the skyscrapers out in Chesterfield or the far West End. Or maybe Petersburg. Forget about Richmond - just turn it into another Charleston or Savannah or -- heck, even better yet - Williamsburg! Wouldn't that just be jolly!! 

(I'm being sarcastic in the last two paragraphs, obviously!  - but ONLY the last two - I'm as serious as an EF 5 tornado above the three asterisks...)

Edited September 10, 2022 by I miss RVA

[Hike]

59 minutes ago, blopp1234 said:

I for one would like to see the silos saved, but only if they can be repurposed and rehabbed. They may not be a 20 story glass residential tower but they are pretty similar in height and a lot more iconic. Not many other cities have large grain silos basically as part of their skyline (outside of Buffalo). Saving the silos would have been a very visible monument to Manchester past as an industrial which is very quickly being erased. I’m not a fan of saving some 1 or 2 story brick or metal warehouse but a building that iconic that has been visible to travelers and has almost served as a gateway to the southern us is far different than the carriage building which tbh I didn’t even know existed prior to this article. While some might feel they are an ugly eyesore, they are more unique and cool looking than any skyscraper Charlotte, Raleigh, Austin, Atlanta or any other sunbelt city has in their skyline or will ever have.
 

Gives off major Brooklyn vibes. 
 

Sadly for me and any others that find old industrial architecture to be more beautiful than any all glass building, they likely won’t be able to be saved, but if they were able to repurpose them as apartments or a hotel, I’d be the first in line to stop any bulldozer or wrecking ball from destroying them.

IMO, renovating the silos to use as residential or commercial space just wouldn’t make sense. I’m not advocating for this thought but could see them being cleaned up, shored up structurally,  painted, some form of lighting, think the Marlboro structures at Phillip Morris down 95, they’d be like an Andy Warhol entry to Manchester, right next to it, a shiny new residential tower. 

[I miss RVA]

7 minutes ago, Hike said:

IMO, renovating the silos to use as residential or commercial space just wouldn’t make sense. I’m not advocating for this thought but could see them being cleaned up, shored up structurally,  painted, some form of lighting, think the Marlboro structures at Phillip Morris down 95, they’d be like an Andy Warhol entry to Manchester, right next to it, a shiny new residential tower. 

I agree with that idea! If it could be incorporated and included somehow in the overall development of a shiny, new, HUGE residential tower, I'd be all for saving it then. So long as it doesn't truncate or stop the development of the tower. Not sure how large the property is - and how that would work. And we ALL know - the preservationists would react pretty much like David Gott - it wouldn't matter that the developer would be willing to incorporate the Silos into the project - they bloody well would insist that either the tower be kneecapped and sawed down to a nub so as not to "detract" from the "character" and "charm" of the Silos by "overshadowing" them (a.k.a., being bigger, taller, etc.) - or - they would insist that NO adjacent development to the Silos occur at all. In other words - zero-sum game. All or nothing. My way or the highway. Never mind that the Silos might get renovated and preserved - because, MY GODDDDD - there would be a... a... NEW RESIDENTIAL TOWER ... that would "spoil" the architecture of the Silos and "take away" from them. 

Again, I can hear George Carlin SCREAMING - "BULL ---- !!!!!!!!!" as loudly and vehemently as possible! 

Anyway, @Hike-- I could go with what you suggested - provided there's no truncation or derailing of the tower component. No telling the developer how big, how tall, where to position it, what shape to make it, what materials to use. I believe the land there is zoned B-4 - so the Hourigan folks SHOULD be able to develop that parcel as they choose BY RIGHT, no?

[Hike]

28 minutes ago, I miss RVA said:

I agree with that idea! If it could be incorporated and included somehow in the overall development of a shiny, new, HUGE residential tower, I'd be all for saving it then. So long as it doesn't truncate or stop the development of the tower. Not sure how large the property is - and how that would work. And we ALL know - the preservationists would react pretty much like David Gott - it wouldn't matter that the developer would be willing to incorporate the Silos into the project - they bloody well would insist that either the tower be kneecapped and sawed down to a nub so as not to "detract" from the "character" and "charm" of the Silos by "overshadowing" them (a.k.a., being bigger, taller, etc.) - or - they would insist that NO adjacent development to the Silos occur at all. In other words - zero-sum game. All or nothing. My way or the highway. Never mind that the Silos might get renovated and preserved - because, MY GODDDDD - there would be a... a... NEW RESIDENTIAL TOWER ... that would "spoil" the architecture of the Silos and "take away" from them. 

Again, I can hear George Carlin SCREAMING - "BULL ---- !!!!!!!!!" as loudly and vehemently as possible! 

Anyway, @Hike-- I could go with what you suggested - provided there's no truncation or derailing of the tower component. No telling the developer how big, how tall, where to position it, what shape to make it, what materials to use. I believe the land there is zoned B-4 - so the Hourigan folks SHOULD be able to develop that parcel as they choose BY RIGHT, no?

Agree, they should be able to yes.  In my 2 minute concept of this idea, it included a new high rise structure, higher than the silos, close to them so there’s a progression of height where the silos stagger upward ending with the new taller tower(s). You are unfortunately right though, this would likely be a deal breaker with some preservation rules, which is too bad, cause I like my idea of course, which would be a unique entry to Manchester and a nice landmark. When overseas, I really enjoyed being in and around all the modern architecture built right into, on top of, in side of buildings hundreds of years old. 

Edited September 10, 2022 by Hike

[I miss RVA]

3 hours ago, Hike said:

Agree, they should be able to yes.  In my 2 minute concept of this idea, it included a new high rise structure, higher than the silos, close to them so there’s a progression of height where the silos stagger upward ending with the new taller tower(s). You are unfortunately right though, this would likely be a deal breaker with some preservation rules, which is too bad, cause I like my idea of course, which would be a unique entry to Manchester and a nice landmark. When overseas, I really enjoyed being in and around all the modern architecture built right into, on top of, in side of buildings hundreds of years old. 

I love your idea - and the staggered/stair-step up from the silos to the taller tower behind it sounds GREAT! But yeah ... the retentives in the preservation uber alles world wouldn't stand for that - ohhhh noooo... it's all or nothing. Zero sum. It's either preserve it or preserve it. And NOTHING - and I MEAN NOTHING - no GREY area WHATSOEVER - in between.

As for the preservation rules it would break - it would violate the one CARDINAL rule - "Build it somewhere else - NOT HERE..." 

Okay - that's an exaggeration - but you get the idea. The only way it would be allowed to be built was if the "scale" was "appropriate" (WTF DOES THAT MEAN??? TO THE DAMN SILOS THERE HAS TO BE SCALE??? SERIOUSLY????) ... it can't be tall - it can't have a lot of mass... it has to be set back... it has to have "sympathetic materials" used - SERIOUSLY???

The laundry lists of "can'ts" and "haftas" is SO LONG and ARDUOUS - WHAT developer is going to put up with THAT crap to try to develop something along the Manchester riverfront - particularly in a place where the BEST and HIGHEST use of the land there CLEARLY is a HIGH RISE RESIDENTIAL TOWER? It's zoned B-4 - and a developer should be allowed to go in and develop as he/she chooses BY RIGHT.

We had better PRAY Hourigan gets off their backsides and gets those Silos taken down before this whole preservation map/implement aggressive preservation zones and districts takes shape. I'm serious as can be about this. Clock is ticking and they had BETTER get this ball rolling like NOW!

[Brent114]

It’s really not that urgent. 
2/3 of Manchester is still a wasteland with much more potential and fewer geographic hurdles. 
 
Focusing on a tiny lot in a pretty inaccessible area (entrance is located on a blind curve of a bridge that will likely be closed for 2-3 years soon.)  That’s the only way in or out and nothing can change that (maybe a bridge across the canal at Decatur but there is a power sub station in the way). It’s a throwaway plot of land, IMO. 

Whether they stay or go will have no bearing on the rest of Manchester. 
 

 

[123fakestreet]

1 hour ago, Brent114 said:

It’s really not that urgent. 
2/3 of Manchester is still a wasteland with much more potential and fewer geographic hurdles. 
 
Focusing on a tiny lot in a pretty inaccessible area (entrance is located on a blind curve of a bridge that will likely be closed for 2-3 years soon.)  That’s the only way in or out and nothing can change that (maybe a bridge across the canal at Decatur but there is a power sub station in the way). It’s a throwaway plot of land, IMO. 

Whether they stay or go will have no bearing on the rest of Manchester. 
 

 

I'd disagree because it's very much the face of Manchester. It's a significant part of the Richmond skyline, and one of the most notable things 100s of thousands of people see if the city as they drive down 95.

A landmark shiny new tower there would really improve the face of Richmond and completely change the face of Manchester.

Edited September 10, 2022 by 123fakestreet

[Hike]

I could get on board with a concept like this but it would require the ability to change the building from its original form and would be expensive I assume.

https://www.epsteinglobal.com/news/the-possibilities-of-adaptive-reuse-repurposing-silos

[I miss RVA]

2 hours ago, Hike said:

I could get on board with a concept like this but it would require the ability to change the building from its original form and would be expensive I assume.

https://www.epsteinglobal.com/news/the-possibilities-of-adaptive-reuse-repurposing-silos

Interesting and actually pretty cool concept. Here's the rub - the retentive preservationists in this city would basically lose their scheitze if the Silos were given this kind of treatment. This concept works in Chicago because it's CHICAGO, which has a FAR MORE PROGRESSIVE and OBJECTIVE mindset toward projects like this. "Form FOLLOWS function" is clearly at work in this Epstein project. You'll notice that the project includes a NEW high rise tower built as an expansive part of the development. This project can be successful because the developers aren't faced with the odious and draconian preservation (read: aesthetics) uber alles mindset that is -- unfortunately -- the baseline in Richmond.

Unfortunately, this would never work in Richmond because it wouldn't be ALLOWED to work. Does anyone honestly think the Ed Slipeks of the world would go for this?  Does anyone honestly think the HRF wouldn't have an apoplectic  seizure if this were proposed for the Silos? 

What the Epstein folks did on this project is actually pretty neat, @Hike!  This is a really good find. 

Edited September 10, 2022 by I miss RVA

[Hike]

27 minutes ago, I miss RVA said:

Interesting and actually pretty cool concept. Here's the rub - the retentive preservationists in this city would basically lose their scheitze if the Silos were given this kind of treatment. This concept works in Chicago because it's CHICAGO, which has a FAR MORE PROGRESSIVE and OBJECTIVE mindset toward projects like this. "Form FOLLOWS function" is clearly at work in this Epstein project. You'll notice that the project includes a NEW high rise tower built as an expansive part of the project. This project can be successful because the developers aren't faced with the odious and draconian preservation (read: aesthetics) uber alles mindset that is -- unfortunately -- the baseline in Richmond.

Unfortunately, this would never work in Richmond because it wouldn't be ALLOWED to work. Does anyone honestly think the Ed Slipeks of the world would go for this?  Does anyone honestly think the HRF wouldn't have an apoplectic  seizure if this were proposed for the Silos? 

What the Epstein folks did on this project is actually pretty neat, @Hike!  This is a really good find. 

I’d like to see a tiered option for preservation and for my lack of knowing the correct term for something like what’s proposed for the silos in Chicago, it would allow the structure, both exterior and interior to be modified while keeping the forms, in particular for something like silos. It would be a more difficult argument to propose turning other more traditional buildings into something like this and I guess that’s where the question lands, what constitutes a building to be classified a historic structure, can silos be a historic structure? From a quick Google search, it seems that the discussion revolves around how few a silos there are, both rural and urban. 

[I miss RVA]

6 hours ago, Brent114 said:

It’s really not that urgent. 
2/3 of Manchester is still a wasteland with much more potential and fewer geographic hurdles. 
 
Focusing on a tiny lot in a pretty inaccessible area (entrance is located on a blind curve of a bridge that will likely be closed for 2-3 years soon.)  That’s the only way in or out and nothing can change that (maybe a bridge across the canal at Decatur but there is a power sub station in the way). It’s a throwaway plot of land, IMO. 

Whether they stay or go will have no bearing on the rest of Manchester. 
 

 

My friend, I respectfully submit that the point isn't ONLY about the Silos.  Focusing on just the Silos misses the MUCH broader picture, which is the possible imposition of a large-scale O&H district that could encompass large swaths of Manchester, if not the ENTIRETY of Manchester. From Prof. Slipek's column yesterday:

The Virginia Department of Historic Resources, the City of Richmond and Historic Richmond (a not-for-profit preservation organization) have recently begun work jointly on a historic resource survey of Southside Richmond. It should provide an understanding of the area’s history while identifying potential sites for historic districts and communities and cemeteries previously overlooked. These findings will contribute to an ambitious citywide preservation plan whose first phase will be launched this fall and winter with completion in May 2024.

This broader work is what potentially can have a SIGNIFICANT impact on Manchester - and what threatens to be the "firehose of ice water" that could EASILY douse the flames of the incredible momentum and pace of development Manchester is currently enjoying by the imposition of odious and draconian preservation restrictions that -- if enacted -- will MINIMIALLY truncate development and, more likely STOP new development of large scale projects like those currently in the pipeline by FORCING developers through a needles-eye of adaptive reuse, coupled with extremely restrictive regulations on height, massing, design,

Imagine regulations such as those in Jackson Ward being foisted upon Manchester. All those new apartment buildings going up? Kiss those babies bye-bye if preservation districts happen.

THIS PLAN IS A DIRECT THREAT TO MANCHESTER'S FUTURE DEVELOPMENT AS A HIGH-DENSITY, URBAN-CORE PART OF RICHMOND!!

I mentioned the Silos and that there is a sense of urgency if Hourigan is going to put their tower up there - because it's front and center on the preservationists' radar. And trust me, they will stop at nothing to prevent Hourigan from developing the site. You think it won't?

Mark my words...

Again, from Prof. Slipek:

This 80-year-old behemoth is an essential element of Manchester’s character. Architectural historian Don O’Keefe says that its “raw, industrial beauty is compelling.” The preservation of this landmark will require the best combined thinking and action of local preservationists and developers.

They want to try to save EVERYTHING - claiming that Manchester has been all but totally lost (which is as FARSICAL as it is DISHONEST and just flat out INCORRECT). Again, from Prof. Slipek:

Since so much of Manchester’s architectural fabric has been lost, every old and historic structure, large and small, should be seriously examined and considered for possible preservation and adaptive reuse.

And.... WHAT will become of the current types of projects being developed in Manchester if THIS comes to pass? What will happen to Manchester's stratospheric growth and momentum?

I think we all know the answer to that question. 

Edited September 10, 2022 by I miss RVA

[blopp1234]

@I miss RVA
 

Its pretty clear you don’t know anything about these regulations if you think any implementation of a historic district would hamper development in Manchester. 
 

Implementing historic districts has proven time and time again not to hamper development as implementing historic districts doesn’t legally do anything to stop development in areas so please stop spreading false information. 
 

Implementing a historic resources survey is nothing more than surveying existing sites in Manchester to determine which have historical significance. What is being proposed by VDHR will do nothing to hamper development of buildings without major historical significance so no……..  they don’t want to try and save EvErYtHiNg as you falsely claim. 

Professor Slipek was not completely wrong in everything he said in the article so please stop taking everything to the extreme and fear mongering on these forums that any sort of preservation will lead to a standstill on all development going on in Richmond as it won’t and it’s hasn’t in any decent city in the country, much less the world.
 

 

 

Edited September 10, 2022 by blopp1234

[wrldcoupe4]

I think we can be calm about this all to be honest. Unlike other buildings in Richmond, I do t see anyone laying in front of the bulldozer for the silos. Sure they’ve been there forever but they won’t enrich the lives of the people that live here today by staying.   I think it’s totally right to strike a balance, but we can do that while also saying goodbye to this structure. 

[I miss RVA]

52 minutes ago, blopp1234 said:

@I miss RVA
 

Its pretty clear you don’t know anything about these regulations if you think any implementation of a historic district would hamper development in Manchester. 
 

Implementing historic districts has proven time and time again not to hamper development as implementing historic districts doesn’t legally do anything to stop development in areas so please stop spreading false information. 
 

Implementing a historic resources survey is nothing more than surveying existing sites in Manchester to determine which have historical significance. What is being proposed by VDHR will do nothing to hamper development of buildings without major historical significance so no……..  they don’t want to try and save EvErYtHiNg as you falsely claim. 

Professor Slipek was not completely wrong in everything he said in the article so please stop taking everything to the extreme and fear mongering on these forums that any sort of preservation will lead to a standstill on all development going on in Richmond as it won’t and it’s hasn’t in any decent city in the country, much less the world.
 

 

 

Well well well... it appears I touched a nerve!

Lemme guess - a staunch preservationist, are we?

 

 

20 minutes ago, wrldcoupe4 said:

I think we can be calm about this all to be honest. Unlike other buildings in Richmond, I do t see anyone laying in front of the bulldozer for the silos. Sure they’ve been there forever but they won’t enrich the lives of the people that live here today by staying.   I think it’s totally right to strike a balance, but we can do that while also saying goodbye to this structure. 

Agreed, Coupe. And hey - WHEN have you EVER known me to be calm when it comes to Richmond's growth? 

Hey @blopp1234-- it's all good, man. Chill, will you? It's my damn soapbox and I'll jump up and down on it if I want to (and, weighing in at north of three bills, I'll probably break it!!)

Edited September 10, 2022 by I miss RVA

[eandslee]

I think we need some real development news to talk about. This lull in development news is messing with people’s minds…we are making issues out of non-issues. Let’s move on.  RBS - please give us something real to talk about on Monday!

[I miss RVA]

17 minutes ago, eandslee said:

I think we need some real development news to talk about. This lull in development news is messing with people’s minds…we are making issues out of non-issues. Let’s move on.  RBS - please give us something real to talk about on Monday!

AMEN to THAT, brother!! From your keyboard to God's eyes. 

[I miss RVA]

On 9/9/2022 at 4:48 PM, Jordon said:

To add on

@Jordon-- this is a fantastic rendering. Where did you find this?

[Brent114]

On 9/10/2022 at 10:44 AM, 123fakestreet said:

I'd disagree because it's very much the face of Manchester. It's a significant part of the Richmond skyline, and one of the most notable things 100s of thousands of people see if the city as they drive down 95.

A landmark shiny new tower there would really improve the face of Richmond and completely change the face of Manchester.

Nah.  It’s not much of a focal point these days.  It becomes less and less prominent with every new building.   Focus  (visual) has definitely shifted away from it. 
 

I like them.  Think they’re cool and am in no hurry for them to go.   But they don’t matter anymore and that plot of land isn’t worth the amount of attention it gets.  The view from there isn’t even that great.