Jump to content

Manchester Development


Richmonopoly

Recommended Posts

I would love to wake up to this view every morning.  

I don't see anything on this site worth saving.  Hopefully a street grid can be established on this site with structured parking as opposed to surface lots. 

Edited by Shakman
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


9 minutes ago, Shakman said:

I would love to wake up to this view every morning.  

Which is why they should plan to build something tall enough to be able to see over the trees and get that great downtown view (nothing too tall, though, in that part of town).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, eandslee said:

I'm excited, but not excited about this development.  Let me explain - I like the fact that the site is going to be developed, but I'm not excited about them converting the warehouse into apartments.  Like you, I think the warehouse is a Richmond icon, but not a positive one.  I'd love to be able to change the image of Richmond in the I-95 corridor and get rid of the old, run-down looking warehouses/facilities that line I-95 that give Richmond a bad reputation for being an old, run-down, behind-the-times city.  Keeping this warehouse (even renovated) is not going to change that perception, I'm afraid.  Instead, I'd like to see new construction in that location - something fresh, new, and clean...something that screams that Richmond has changed and is not the old, run-down, slum town that people who only drive through the city via I-95 think it is.  At the very least, if they keep the warehouse and convert it, have it surrounded by eye-popping new construction that will make a statement.  Your thoughts?

I disagree.  I absolutely love this building and a lot of the industrial vibe of entering Richmond from the south before reaching the central city.  These are transitions you see when driving into any major East Coast city, of which are lacking in relatively new comers like Charlotte, Austin and Raleigh. 

I would really like to see this property developed into something along the scale of the original Rocketts Landing master plan and tied into New Manchester Flats and ultimately to Hull St.  Perhaps add a new I-95 ramp at Goodes St. to improve access.  I could also imagine this site as a replacement for the Hanover outlet mall, given its long parcel and great interstate visibility combined with a central location.  One big negative, though, is the strong odor from the water treatment plant across the highway.  I would love to one day see the treatments plant relocated and both its land and the quarry added as dense developments connected to Rocketts Landing via a Goode St. bridge.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that the existing industrial architecture is an asset that hopefully developers can leverage and build from rather than demolish. Here's an interesting project underway in Atlanta that has parallels, though it's located closer to some strong residential neighborhoods. https://atlanta.curbed.com/atlanta-development/2018/1/31/16955604/pullman-yard-atlanta-vision-kirkwood-development-atomic

unnamed.jpg

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, vaceltic said:

This is such a huge development spanning so many different properties it is going to be a bit until we figure out exactly what is going to happen with everything. It sucks that this is happening, but at the same time are the Hilds' really going to just walk away from all the property they've acquired? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

Has there been any recent news on whether the 550 project is a go? Having some height along Hull St. would be awesome, and hopefully would spur other developers to enter the picture and bring larger/taller buildings to that part of Manchester.  It is great to see this part of the city becoming vibrant again after so many years of blight and decay.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Townhomes coming to Manchester next to Legend Brewery. I was less than excited at first, but the more I thought about it I think it will be a good thing to increase home ownership in the neighborhood and having that income bracket spending money in the city is a plus.

https://richmondbizsense.com/2018/10/31/eagle-construction-swoops-city/

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah that's well and good but they could have done this on literally any other parcel in Manchester other than this one and it would have been fine. This is a riverfront premium lot, which should make it ripe for high-rise development. Apartment demand is still pretty high and they could have easily made something denser than 27 townhomes. This development just doesn't excite me as it should.

edit: quote from the article:

Quote

The site is zoned RF-2 Riverfront District, which allows for buildings up to 13 stories.

This just makes me more frustrated

Edited by RVA-Is-The-Best
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like the row homes going in front of the river, I can see Manchester having a good step back style development along the river front. Shorter buildings on the river and growing taller as you go back, more bang for your buck that way. Having just towers along the river means you would need even taller buildings in the back to take advantage of river views, which lets be honest, isn't going to happen.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don’t mind them being low-slung here either.   The lot across the street sold a few months ago.  That will probably be a mid rise.  The parking and mechanical rooms could get the first residential floor above these townhomes. 

I’m more worried about the design.  If they are similar to the condos beside them, this will be nice infill.  If it looks like something in Wyndham I’ll be annoyed.  That they are being built by Eagle has me apprehensive. 

Edited by Brent114
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, drayrichmond said:

I like the row homes going in front of the river, I can see Manchester having a good step back style development along the river front. Shorter buildings on the river and growing taller as you go back, more bang for your buck that way. Having just towers along the river means you would need even taller buildings in the back to take advantage of river views, which lets be honest, isn't going to happen.

What's concerning with this concept would be the town home owners complaining about a highrise next to them.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Shakman said:

What's concerning with this concept would be the town home owners complaining about a highrise next to them.

Let them complain, they wouldn't be able to change much if it's allowed per zoning. 

I like the idea of townhouses here. It adds some more home ownership and varies the type of housing in the area. I wish they weren't going to be higher end like they seem, but it is what it is. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, tparkerzut said:

There's no space for another project between these houses and the river, it is just active rail area. 

For a third of the property the office structure can fit directly in the view-shed.   Even with it not completely blocking, a lot of view-shed will be lost to the North and East, though the Manchester bridge and city core should be unobstructed.  Also, how much of Norfolk-Southern turnaround track was there for the now removed industry?  Given that a lot of that rail has been ripped up, in time, could they sell that land to a developer and just leave the through tracks to the yard and West?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.