Jump to content

mikeas

494 St Paul Residential Development

Recommended Posts

http://www.norfolk.gov/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Item/1739?fileID=2313

Well, the rendering on page 48 doesn't look terrible, and it looks like they hid the parking, so that's a plus. The image they provide for reference seems to be a DC Georgetown style. That said, we still have a huge problem. It is not mixed use and there are only 6 market rate units. So once again there is concentrated poverty, no retail, and the community is still disconnected from downtown.

Looks like this project got kicked back to the planning commission again. It is now on the November 12th docket. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


That definitely is better than what was originally planned, but it's still a let down. I would have loved to see some mixed used components integrated into this. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On Wednesday, October 07, 2015, vdogg said:

Looks like this project got kicked back to the planning commission again. It is now on the November 12th docket. 

Looks like it wasn't for much... From the release (http://www.norfolk.gov/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/11122015-580):

B. Private Project (on property acquired from the City)

1. 494 St. Paul’s Boulevard—St. Paul’s Apartments

Applicant: City of Norfolk

Project Request: New construction, multi-family housing

Project Summary: This project has come before ARB on several occasions with

substantial design changes since their December submission. The applicant has

relocated some of the buildings to concentrate them along Wood Street, St. Paul’s

Boulevard, and Bute Street. The design has changed making the buildings three story

which spreads out the massing over the site. The units that front the streets on the

first level have individual entrances to the street some of these entrances are in the

rear also. This gives a townhome appearance from the street making for an active

pedestrian interaction between the buildings and the sidewalk. This design has

reduced the fencing and fortress effect of the previous designs. The upper floors have

access through the rear and have been enclosed. A buff colored field brick has been

added for contrast.

The applicant came before the ARB on October 19, 2015 and the ARB asked for a

resolution to the following items:

Study the building on the southwest corner (which is the office) to find a way to

increase the verticality either with a second story or alterations of the rooflines;

look at the tower that is on the northwest corner how it is finished at the top;

continue to work with WPA and Ray Gindroz on the rear elevations;

more articulation for the windows;

consider changing the color of the awnings on that one-story building (southwest

corner);

submit details of the fencing style and the location(s).

In response to the above items, the applicant has submitted the following information:

The applicant has removed the awning in the previous design, extended the height

of the exterior walls while maintaining one floor on the interior; added windows;

and metal canopies to look like it is a two-story building;

Removed the tower at the northwest corner entirely;

Added more detail to the rear elevations;

Will bring a different window sample to the meeting;

Went from metal standing-seam awnings to steel canopies;

The fencing style is an aluminum picket style with a smooth rail across the top,

anchored by brick piers to match the buildings and a location site plan has been

submitted.

ARB Recommendation: By a vote of 8-0, the ARB recommends approval for the

application as presented, with the following recommendations:

The applicant uses the proposed design of the office corner that was presented at

the ARB meeting on November 9, 2015;

The windows have exterior simulated divided lites (SDL) for better window

definition and shadow lines.

 

Edited by Arctic_Tern

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These actually sound like some decent changes. It'll give the area more of a Georgetown feel instead of the "suburban Chesapeake" motif that they were going for earlier.  People were unhappy about this and really held their feet to the fire. It looks like insistence on adherence to design guidelines payed off in this instance. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the state of the city address Mayor Kenny Alexander stated that construction on these would begin this summer. Not sure if 3rd renderings of it have been posted yet. 

large.P_StPaul_4.jpg.cd3f5adfb54120dc9671dd3d5bba736b.jpglarge.PI_StPauls09.jpg.58d3d020c6ef6bcfb2da539a365303e0.jpglarge.PI_StPauls07.jpg.c7d37014df66e653ae6755f8da538133.jpglarge.PI_StPauls06.jpg.27f87b263ae0d59b7b11d4574d5a02a1.jpglarge.PI_StPauls02.jpg.dda5ba46543a12481638d6685eb79d7b.jpg

 

-2017

  • 4.5 acre site in downtown Norfolk, VA
  • 126 units in 8 buildings:
    – 1 Bedroom Units 20
    – 2 Bedroom Units 80
    – 3 Bedroom Units 26
  • Amenities include a “Cornerstone Lifestyle” clubhouse, pool, and outdoor plaza
  • As part of the St. Paul’s quandrant, worked with Norfolk ARB and City staff
  • VHDA Application
  • EarthCraft platinum certified for energy efficiency.

I'm not sure if this is the right place to post this. 

 ( Old map but for reference )

 

large.norfolk-st-pauls-illustrative-plan_goody-clancy.jpg.1f0c5f41005f1df2a33df9c1ed0dc443.jpg

 

 

 

Edited by Si7i

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, this would in fact be the very beginning of the expansion of downtown to St. Paul's quadrant. Never thought I'd see the day, lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That looks like a massive waste of space to me. I mean the renderings look good but its just a bunch of 3 story building that don't look all that different than the projects across the street.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hopefully there's a new design that allows them to go vertical. Not sure why Norfolk likes building these dull, short buildings that stretch city blocks. Save space and use the height.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My 1st impression was looks good, too short... 5 stories and up would give SPQ that DC feel.  Also didn't like how some of the parking wasn't hidden.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they could redesign this with a 4 story parking garage and 2 towers on top 6-8 stories each that'd be great. It would also show that they are really trying to make this part of downtown. 

Edited by Urbanlooker
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, BFG said:

Hopefully there's a new design that allows them to go vertical. Not sure why Norfolk likes building these dull, short buildings that stretch city blocks. Save space and use the height.

It's all supply and demand driven. The original proposals had larger buildings and more parking, looking rather suburban. The city wanted them to spread the buildings across the block and hide the parking, thus getting a more urban look but shorter buildings. It was the right call by the city. 

The only street fronting lot is part of the church which isn't part of this project. While not the most desired project, this isn't too difficult to swallow.

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can live with it. Honestly, I'm just glad to see the city get started on SPQ, and that residents in Tidewater Gardens will be given a chance to remain downtown. The next 10 years will be interesting for that area.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not like it...

If the city wants to return public houses, ok whatever, but it should be thought out better. I would not stretch them city blocks and I would also not consolidate them to add in a true mix of income and business. short story buildings aren't bad if they exist alone, but they are making many units of this, that's the part I do not like. Almost an update of what they currently have, while wiping out some in the process. I know the idea should be a community, but they have to get away from this "Project" style of developments. I think we have gotten into that space where "anything new is better" mindset of development.

This kind of development will waffle Norfolk's prominence in the region, you can count on that.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, not a fan either.  The entire allure of St Paul's would be mixed use and a chance to expand downtown.  If you're just going to add residential, you're not really expanding the downtown in terms of amenities.  The infamous St Paul's plan includes the right mix of retail.  They should have waited for a developer that would have incorporated commercial space on the first floor but it appears some on city council didn't want the developer to walk so they caved.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, brikkman said:

I do not like it...

If the city wants to return public houses, ok whatever, but it should be thought out better. I would not stretch them city blocks and I would also not consolidate them to add in a true mix of income and business. short story buildings aren't bad if they exist alone, but they are making many units of this, that's the part I do not like. Almost an update of what they currently have, while wiping out some in the process. I know the idea should be a community, but they have to get away from this "Project" style of developments. I think we have gotten into that space where "anything new is better" mindset of development.

This kind of development will waffle Norfolk's prominence in the region, you can count on that.

Eh, it's all in the execution. If we get a textured brick design with nice landscaping as shown in the renderings, this will be just fine. It's contextual with the church, and is flush with the street on all sides but the church parking lot. At worse, this looks like a college dorm. It is nothing like Tidewater Gardens. Yes, mixed use would be better, but this is in line with what was planned in that small section of SPQ.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It could definitely be better, if nothing else, it is at least a start and for the northern end of SPQ, which I never expected there to be anything bigger than this in that portion. Ideally 4-5 story buildings with at least some commercial on the first floor would have been a better start.

Share this post


Link to post
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.