Jump to content

Scott's Addition Development


varunner

Recommended Posts


46 minutes ago, whw53 said:

The best thing the city can do for the BLVD is move forward with their land and get that RFP out ASAP. That will be the catalyst for density along here and change the land use economics for Greater Scotts Addition - otherwise the market will proceed with treating the Blvd here as just another exit along 95, which is what it is due to the city's ineptitude. Car wash user saw a nice site next to a WaWA in an otherwise  wasteland - can't blame them. 

Completely agree with this. The city has stumbled through what to do what this area for 20 years. You can thank that incompetence for a car wash at a city gateway. I also wasn't exactly expecting something grandiose going up next to the Wawa either. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Brent114 said:

What a waste of water.

FYI, a typical modern automatic car wash is more water efficient than a home hand wash, and that is not even accounting for those with recycling systems.  They also better manage chemical runoff compared to home washing where it all goes into the drainage system.

While I am certainly not excited about this development (though I may use it), at least it is on a small lot directly adjacent to a loud interstate that would not be desirable for residential mixed use.  Better than in the middle of a high-potential corridor such as the old Car Pool.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To flesh out my perspective here a bit more - What I'm trying to say is that I don't think the right course is to have the city take an aggressive role by denying permits based on the master plan concept especially when the underlying zonings and economics isn't there yet. And if I'm wrong  then the owners along here like Thalhimer who are hinting at mixed use  will reap the reward. It could be that this area is on the verge of transition so that continued industrial/ auto centric AND mixed use opportunities  are both smart land uses. But maybe not, all I know is the permit office doesn't know yet either. Denying a car wash isn't going to put up a mixed use building here necessarily  - the parcel would just remain vacant for some time.   I would be disturbed by any overturning of a use that is permitted, provides jobs, and has done everything correct in the land use process. 

It sounds odd but this same flexibility and divergence from plans is great in the long run and has been appreciated here - think of all the tall, dense projects that have had to go through SUP's because they don't conform to zoning, plans etc. Better to incentivize than to take such a heavy handed approach. Better to let the market take the lead on urbanization like it did for Scott's Addition \ Manchester then to try to compel it when it's not ready. See, I want the situation to be that a car wash is a bad use of the land here not just from an urbanist perspective but from a more complete market urbanist reality- but  for the car was operator and the land owner it must've made economic sense to move forward with this project now so i can respect that. One day soon the land values will be such that it will make economic sense to tear down that car wash and put up something taller and grander - but we are just not there yet.

Edited by whw53
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, whw53 said:

To flesh out my perspective here a bit more - What I'm trying to say is that I don't think the right course is to have the city take an aggressive role by denying permits based on the master plan concept especially when the underlying zonings and economics isn't there yet. And if I'm wrong  then the owners along here like Thalhimer who are hinting at mixed use  will reap the reward. It could be that this area is on the verge of transition so that continued industrial/ auto centric AND mixed use opportunities  are both smart land uses. But maybe not, all I know is the permit office doesn't know yet either. Denying a car wash isn't going to put up a mixed use building here necessarily  - the parcel would just remain vacant for some time.   I would be disturbed by any overturning of a use that is permitted, provides jobs, and has done everything correct in the land use process. 

It sounds odd but this same flexibility and divergence from plans is great in the long run and has been appreciated here - think of all the tall, dense projects that have had to go through SUP's because they don't conform to zoning, plans etc. Better to incentivize than to take such a heavy handed approach. Better to let the market take the lead on urbanization like it did for Scott's Addition \ Manchester then to try to compel it when it's not ready. See, I want the situation to be that a car wash is a bad use of the land here not just from an urbanist perspective but from a more complete market urbanist reality- but  for the car was operator and the land owner it must've made economic sense to move forward with this project now so i can respect that. One day soon the land values will be such that it will make economic sense to tear down that car wash and put up something taller and grander - but we are just not there yet.

Fully agreed, whw53. Excellent perspective.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally, I’d rather have the grassy lot.

We’ll  be looking at a car wash here for 20 years and the curb cuts carved  out for them for another 20. 

The carwash isn’t the end of the world of course (there was one until a year or so ago closer to Broad)  I just don’t get spending the time and resources  on developing  Richmond 300 if at the end of the day the attitude will be “let the market just do what it does anyway”.   I’m more upset with the city for wasting  money on these visions when they have no intention of doing their part to realize said visions. They should just play Sim City and save us a lot of money and emotion.  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

6-story, 126 unit building planned by Thalhimer at 1508 Belleville St. Good stuff, more infill.

https://richmondbizsense.com/2021/01/27/thalhimer-freeland-plan-126-unit-apartment-building-in-scotts-addition/

1.27R-belleville1.jpeg

 

I always try to play 'guess the architect' before reading. I went with SMBW based on their design for 1114 Hull in which the façade is real similar to this. But I should've guessed 510 Architects (based just down the street from this site on Leigh). They also designed Scott's Collection 1 and I can see hints of that project in this.

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, wrldcoupe4 said:

I'm glad to see other firms get a run at designing the multifamily going up... It was the WalterParks show for a long time. I know beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but I just wasn't feeling some of their designs.

Thankfully there are enough projects out there now where I doubt Walter Parks has the staff to work them all (even if they copy/paste).  The diversity in designs is nice.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, whw53 said:

Article notes project intends to break ground 4th quarter 2021 - so did the other Bonaventure site block up on Belleville. Got my calculator out and tallied up some numbers but if so then we would have close to 1,300 units at some point under construction this year in Scott's or at least active in the development process. This includes the 29, 5 or 6 bedroom units for the Outlier co-housing project which is abnormal. I'd rather count bedrooms but not all projects have provided that yet. This is aggressive timeline if all the projects yet to break ground surely do this year but let's hold them to it.

Under Construction or Site Work begun > 783 units

  •    Scotts Collection 1 - 80 units
  •    Scott's Collection 2 - 60 units
  •    Capital Square\Relay Site\Greystar - 353 units
  •    Lofts @ Broad - 290 units (210 1 bed, 80 2 bed) between 2 buildings

Announced in 2020 , assumed groundbreaking 2021-  in planning, permitting  pre-dev process > 377 units

  • Scotts Collection 3 - 72 units
  • Soda Flats - 73 units (67 1 bedroom, 6 2 bedroom)
  • The Outlier - 29 units (148 total bedrooms - 5 or 6 BR units)
  • Bonventure Belleville Apartments - 203 units between 2 buildings

Announced in 2021 with intention of breaking ground later this year > 126 units

  • Freeland\Thalhimer Belleville site - 126 units , all 1 beds

 

This dosn't include the Kotarides or the Spy Rock projects under construction just over 195. They could arguably be included here.  We discuss them in this thread at least. If we want to do that then we can add 461 units to the 'Under Construction' column. So a revised count would be 1,244 units under construction, 1,747 apartments somewhere in development process as of now in 2021. This is also only what has been announced or discovered by us. Surely much more in the works or on the drawing board. 

   

    

whw53 - this is great information. We should definitely keep track of how much is being built in the various boom hotspots (Scott's Addition, Manchester, Rocketts/Fulton, Jackson Ward/Gilpin, Monroe Ward/downtown) ...

Since Manchester seems to be something of a "counterweight" boom hot spot to Scott's Addition, do we have any idea (based on your criteria above) how many units are being built in or are planned for Manchester over the next year? I'd love to get an idea how these two parts of town stack up.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/13/2021 at 5:52 PM, rjp212 said:

On top of the rezoning you mentioned above, I noticed Thalhimer just listed 20,000 sf of Retail space at 3062 N Arthur Ashe called "Scotts Walk"   They bought this lot for $4 million a few weeks after the above mentioned lot.   Sounds like some new development is about to the announced!

https://richmondbizsense.com/2020/02/07/buyer-tied-to-thalhimer-grabs-more-land-next-to-the-diamond/

https://www.thalhimer.com/properties/scotts-walk

Meh, turns out "Scott's Walk" is a glorified strip center.    Nothing like calling a place "Scotts Walk" and then forcing people to drive to it., complete with a drive-thru...

https://www.thalhimer.com/sites/default/files/listings_files/ScottsWalk.pdf

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, rjp212 said:

Meh, turns out "Scott's Walk" is a glorified strip center.    Nothing like calling a place "Scotts Walk" and then forcing people to drive to it., complete with a drive-thru...

https://www.thalhimer.com/sites/default/files/listings_files/ScottsWalk.pdf

Something tells me this didn't make the Richmond 300 plan!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, I miss RVA said:

Something tells me this didn't make the Richmond 300 plan!

It appears that nothing so far, that I've seen that is planned to be built, made the Richmond 300 plan!  The plan was put together, but no one is sticking to it!  Such a waste of time if we don't follow it.  Disappointing.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just like Scott's-  new construction is only going to come after some neighborhood entertainment uses are established if the same demographic is intended to make inroads here.  I know it sounds basic but seems to be the pattern...so these restaurant sites may lay the groundwork for that as this area has no brewery or anything like that right now.  Also, the project in and of itself is trivial but fresh development along the Blvd tidies up the appearance  and more importantly gets people used to being in this area as they patronize the establishments here. Somebody sitting on that slick new deck having a beer looking around and saying 'well, this ain't so bad - I could live down here' is where we were in Scott's 8 to 10 years ago except then they were sitting at Ardent.  There was no new construction at that point - it was piecemeal, and smaller reno projects. Back to Scott's Walk, maybe once this is built and attracts some hip tenants a land owner in close proximity can get with a development team and could now market any project as being close to  'Scott's Walk restaurants' etc. Remember Richmond 300 is the vision building toward 2037. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Y'all make it sound like this is far away from surrounding areas.  Thalhimer owns now nearly half the territory from Wawa to  Potbelly, and continues to gobble up other land.  People walk that corridor constantly for the baseball games.  Thalhimer could literally start the transformation of the neighborhood themselves.  This is a cop out by them, especially with the drive-thru.  Those commercial buildings could all be street facing with parking behind.  Instead they are going for a suburban layout, the same with my qualms with Wawa and the car wash.   Those business are necessary, but you can orient them in a more urban manner that contributes to the ultimate goal of the neighborhood instead of just saying "oh well, we can redevelop in 20 years".

Edited by rjp212
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, eandslee said:

It appears that nothing so far, that I've seen that is planned to be built, made the Richmond 300 plan!  The plan was put together, but no one is sticking to it!  Such a waste of time if we don't follow it.  Disappointing.

I agree with you for the most part, though I'd suggest that all these new higher-density apartment buildings popping all up all over Scott's Addition like mushrooms after a spring T-storm are pretty much in line with Richmond 300. Where the big fumble is occurring is north of the old Acca Yards bridge - "Greater Scott's Addition" is it? That area was/is supposed to be intensely developed - but that's not happening yet. I don't know that intense development can/will happen in that part of town until Scott's Addition itself fills out and beefs up more. With more than 1,700 apartments to come online in the next few years (according to whw53's calculations above), the population density of SA will increase quite dramatically in a relatively short span of time (much the same way Manchester has been and continues to explode from the standpoint of population). Let's see what Scott's Addition looks like in three years - how many more apartment buildings will be announced between now and then - and with all of these being built getting filled up - then perhaps the northern part of "Greater Scott's Addition" will start to see some of that intense urban core growth projected/depicted in the Richmond 300 renderings.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, rjp212 said:

Those commercial buildings could all be street facing with parking behind.

This is my biggest gripe and perhaps the Committee of Architectural Review can influence the orientation.

 

5 hours ago, rjp212 said:

If that is a chick-fil-a, then expect major traffic back ups at the location.  They always do.  Mark my words, the public will then blame it on the “dense over development” of Scotts Addition and the Nimbys will come out in full force for any redevelopment chances.  Not because we want a walkable transit oriented neighborhood, but because chick fil a wanted a drive through in the middle of a future urban neighborhood.   
 

 

Funny, but sadly true :(

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Icetera said:

This is my biggest gripe and perhaps the Committee of Architectural Review can influence the orientation.

Seems like over the years they've been too busy cow-towing to the preservationist NIMBYs who don't like this project or that because it supposedly doesn't fit in with the "architectural character" or "historic fabric" of this place or that... or some such nonsense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Icetera said:

This is my biggest gripe and perhaps the Committee of Architectural Review can influence the orientation.

They only have jurisdiction in the city's 'Old & Historic Districts' 

https://www.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?webmap=60ee42f309734f2aa23955db82f707b5

 

There's a patchwork of plan review requirements. Some zoning codes anything proposed over certain sqft requires a plan review by city staff  which could introduce design opinion but I doubt that applies to an M-1 zoning code. They have made moves in past year to  lower this threshold ins some B zoning districts. Additionally  the new Pulse plan actions so far have established special Plan of Development overlay districts which give staff more leeway in requiring certain form based elements and approval based off design guidelines but these are new and only cover Monroe Ward right now I think - maybe Scott's Addition. The action proposed in Carver\Allison\Newtowne also contained this parallel ordinance alongside the rezoning actions but  that whole initiative as we know is back to drawing board. Museum District has a special Design Overlay status that is separate from these POD's or zoned based so yea...patchwork.

I understand gripe about 300 plan seemingly not being followed to its max although this area north of Acca west of Blvd was only classified as 'industrial mixed use' in plan so not 100% convinced these proposals go against 300 - but point is there's defined processes for this influence - the permits come after the fact and these plan review cases. You wouldn't have a situation where the permit office denies something based off the master plan. The plan is not the law - the zoning is. 300  is the goal for the city, private developers, and citizens so blame isn't just on the city when the tools arn't there yet for city to work with .  For this case you can fault Thalhimer but that goes back to prior discussion on the economics of the immediate area. Anyway, master plan  can and should influence the direction of the rezonings and other mechanisms but it isn't the decision maker in and of itself. Just like Pulse plan didn't establish new ordinances itself overnight but  has relied on rezoning actions and initiative of private developers over last 3 years along Broad for implementation, so to 300 will take time to be realized and progress will be uneven.

Edited by whw53
  • Like 2
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.