Jump to content

New Bonney Road Development


vdogg

Recommended Posts

With regards to the stormwater issue, the city's hands are tied. Matthew was a real wake up call for us, and the public outcry following the massive flooding that occurred was staggering. A lot of the new rules that are in place now were put in place as a direct response to the effects of that hurricane, and as much as they do add cost and delays, these rules are necessary simply due to where we live. Unfortunately, I don't see a way around that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


3 hours ago, vdogg said:

With regards to the stormwater issue, the city's hands are tied. Matthew was a real wake up call for us, and the public outcry following the massive flooding that occurred was staggering. A lot of the new rules that are in place now were put in place as a direct response to the effects of that hurricane, and as much as they do add cost and delays, these rules are necessary simply due to where we live. Unfortunately, I don't see a way around that.

Well ok, but then you must accept the reality that many projects...projects which you might very much like to see get built...and often complain about not seeing get built...simply won't get built in this current "regulatory," red tape, slow-roll environment.  I've just explained the view of very many in the local development community...and the Mayor...among others.  You can decide for yourself.  I'm as free-enterprisse, pro-business as they come, but I do believe in reasonable, rational govt. regulations.  I don't believe VB has been reasonable in the past few years.  YMMV may vary as to your own personal feelings for the entrepreneurial classes....for govt. regulation, in general, and the business climate here in VB as partially influenced by City employees.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 weeks later...

I can't speak for other development red tape but as someone who works in stormwater, the regulations that have changed are definitely for the better it just makes makes development alot more expensive. There's a rule since that Mathew that developments can't increase the hydraulic grade line at all. This site is definitely in an area that would require extensive stormwater improvements to not increase the level, can be done just takes alot of cash.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
  • 2 weeks later...

It's conservative, just like Mr. Cutchins.  Handsome enough, nothing ground-breaking.  The City denied a partnership request re: parking garages, so the setback is what it is. He would have built many more units with a limited setback had the City approved his request that bonds be issued for parking structures.  Pembroke Square was successful in its bid to do the same. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, baobabs727 said:

It's conservative, just like Mr. Cutchins.  Handsome enough, nothing ground-breaking.  The City denied a partnership request re: parking garages, so the setback is what it is. He would have built many more units with a limited setback had the City approved his request that bonds be issued for parking structures.  Pembroke Square was successful in its bid to do the same. 

I have a feeling that had to do with who brought more to the table. The city can only be in so many partnerships financially. Town Center is still sucking most of the oxygen out of the room, leaving Pembroke and Cutchins to fight over the scraps. Pembroke is objectively proposing a much more intensive level of development, which I'm sure weighed heavily on the city's decision to go with them.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, vdogg said:

I have a feeling that had to do with who brought more to the table. The city can only be in so many partnerships financially. Town Center is still sucking most of the oxygen out of the room, leaving Pembroke and Cutchins to fight over the scraps. Pembroke is objectively proposing a much more intensive level of development, which I'm sure weighed heavily on the city's decision to go with them.

True. Its just that I had noticed that City staff had commented on his decision not to utilize the allowable reduced setback to its fullest extent and thought that they should understand that he tried to do just that (plus go more vertical) but was essentially rebuffed by Council as far as a public-private partnership.  A developer can only do but so much within the parameters of economic feasibility.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, baobabs727 said:

True. Its just that I had noticed that City staff had commented on his decision not to utilize the allowable reduced setback to its fullest extent and thought that they should understand that he tried to do just that (plus go more vertical) but was essentially rebuffed by Council as far as a public-private partnership.  A developer can only do but so much within the parameters of economic feasibility.

It basically comes down to us needing to reduce and/or reform Parking Minimums found in City Ordinance. They’re insanely high and since we won’t invest in any sort of meaningful multi-modal transportation infrastructure, everyone is under the impression that more and more parking is needed. Developers end up with an unfortunate choice. We’d see a lot less cookie-cutter 5-Over-1s and way more actual residential towers if we didn’t force developers to spend most of their budget on parking structures or use most of their land for surface parking. Parking has hindered every single project I’ve been involved with since starting at the City of Virginia Beach. It’s caused designs to be compromised and overall livability to suffer. I get that we’ll still need a good amount of parking for quite some time since most Virginia Beach residents drive, but that can start to change if we build rapid transit, reduce parking minimums, implement road diets, etc., all of which will better foster higher-quality development focused on humans instead of automobiles.

Cities are for humans, not cars :)

Edited by Lluck002
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Lluck002 said:

I get that we’ll still need a good amount of parking for quite some time since most Virginia Beach residents drive, but that can start to change if we build rapid transit, reduce parking minimums, implement road diets, etc., all of which will better foster higher-quality development focused on humans instead of automobiles.

Cities are for humans, not cars :)

I totally agree right now VB, Norfolk, and really every city in America needs to do such. There are on average about 4+ parking spots for every person in a city across the US. This is unsustainable, it's worked thus far because the room has been available. But cities are become more and more confined and having 1/3 of the city covered in parking lots and roads constrains them even more. Cities must invest in mass transit be it busses, rail, or otherwise (more preferably a mix) but it must be done well. 

Edited by Urbanlooker
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Lluck002 said:

It basically comes down to us needing to reduce and/or reform Parking Minimums found in City Ordinance. They’re insanely high and since we won’t invest in any sort of meaningful multi-modal transportation infrastructure, everyone is under the impression that more and more parking is needed. Developers end up with an unfortunate choice. We’d see a lot less cookie-cutter 5-Over-1s and way more actual residential towers if we didn’t force developers to spend most of their budget on parking structures or use most of their land for surface parking. Parking has hindered every single project I’ve been involved with since starting at the City of Virginia Beach. It’s caused designs to be compromised and overall livability to suffer. I get that we’ll still need a good amount of parking for quite some time since most Virginia Beach residents drive, but that can start to change if we build rapid transit, reduce parking minimums, implement road diets, etc., all of which will better foster higher-quality development focused on humans instead of automobiles.

Cities are for humans, not cars :)

I agree with you re:  parking requirements.  Time and again, they've been shown to be excessive in practice and unduly burdensome on the developer.  Unfortunately, I don't see the public transit situation in Virginia Beach changing for many years to come, in large part because we have yet to reach critical mass in terms of population density.  Virginia Beach is vast, sprawling and...oh...also occasionally resistant to change.   :-) 

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

At this point, I think the most we get is bus rapid transit or simply expanded bus service for HRT. And for a tourist spot like the strip, I think those two options are way more feasible and cost-effictive. Imagine staying in an Airbnb or hotel near Town Center, and being able to take BRT down the Blvd. to the strip.

As much as I wanted light rail to work, that train took off six years ago and ain't coming back. But as VB continues to grow, it has to realize you can't tout yourself as a city of the future by operating as a suburb from the early-80s.

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, BFG said:

At this point, I think the most we get is bus rapid transit or simply expanded bus service for HRT. And for a tourist spot like the strip, I think those two options are way more feasible and cost-effictive. Imagine staying in an Airbnb or hotel near Town Center, and being able to take BRT down the Blvd. to the strip.

As much as I wanted light rail to work, that train took off six years ago and ain't coming back. But as VB continues to grow, it has to realize you can't tout yourself as a city of the future by operating as a suburb from the early-80s.

Light Rail isn’t off the table though. The media keeps spinning it as if the 2016 Referendum actually solidified anything. Us at the Department of Planning & Community Development try to work with Hampton Roads Transit to get the Virginian-Pilot to stop publishing misinformation about it. The Referendum was legally non-binding and only asked residents’ opinion whether they think City tax funds should go towards funding the Tide; it did not ask whether it shouldn’t be built at all. The previous City Treasurer, John Atkinson, ran a huge misinformation smear campaign against Light Rail and got people riled up over falsehoods and hearsay, making the vote even more illegitimate. And further, the vote was super close, like almost 50-50 AND the previous Referendum had residents vote IN FAVOR of it. If anything, a third vote as a tie-breaker would be fair. But we shouldn’t forget that even if this 2016 Referendum were legally-binding, we could still literally build the whole light rail system throughout Virginia Beach if we found other sources of funding. Engineering was already completed so we could just reuse those plans and then for construction we can use a combination of regional, state, and federal grants, maybe even a public-private partnership. Let’s not forget Virginia Beach is receiving the MOST funding from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Act out of any jurisdiction in Virginia. I question why when our roads cannot be widened further and we apparently won’t invest in rail. That money could be used for Tide to Town Center!

Regardless, yeah BRT would at least be better than nothing. As long as it is as good or better than Richmond’s Pulse and is built to allow easy future conversion to Light Rail/Tram, then I’ll be slightly happy.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

Mr. Cutchins informs me that this apartment project is officially ON HOLD.  Waiting for interest rates and construction materials to fall back to earth.  In no hurry. 

On another note, he says he's very happy with his office occupancy. Currently investing in some landscaping and turf refurbishment. He's always doing that.    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, baobabs727 said:

Mr. Cutchins informs me that this apartment project is officially ON HOLD.  Waiting for interest rates and construction materials to fall back to earth.  In no hurry. 

On another note, he says he's very happy with his office occupancy. Currently investing in some landscaping and turf refurbishment. He's always doing that.    

Probably going to see a lot of this in 2023. Costs on every front are going up while there's some indications that new construction is finally catching up to demand. At a minimum, there will be a robust pipeline once we come out of whatever is ahead. Happy to hear his properties are preforming well. AH shared similar sentiments so the best office product in the Town Center area remains strong. I am curious about how the properties on Corporation Lane are doing but those are a tier below IMO. 

  • Like 1
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.