Monroe Ward / Oregon Hill

[ancientcarpenter]

1 hour ago, wrldcoupe4 said:

Story was updated. It's not them.

Excellent. I am happy to see this update. 

[whw53]

7 hours ago, ancientcarpenter said:

They are not in the business of developing. 

Well, not yet but we do know from a ZCL they are exploring an apartment project in Newtowne adjacent to the tracks off Dineen (see Newtowne\Carver thread)

In addition i got another ZCL for us filed earlier this week - this one's just right down the st at 6 s 1st. There Dobrin is exploring a 5 story building according to this.

https://energov.richmondgov.com/EnerGov_Prod/SelfService/richmondvaprod#/plan/a8585fc3-118c-48bb-9ce0-96d2d41b9cf2?tab=contacts

Multi-family, 11-50 units. Existing use: Parking Lot. Proposed use: Multi-family. Build 5 story apartment building with 5 onsite parking spaces, 27 units against property line between 4 S 1st due to easement on property of 4 S 1st and at rear with no setbacks required in TOD-1.

 

 

 

 

 

edit - note this is directly adjacent to Foushee Mews, that parking lot on west half of this block is currently torn up. Wow 'lower' monroe ward south of main is really starting to fill in with that project, One Canal, now potentially this.

Edited December 2, 2021 by whw53

[I miss RVA]

32 minutes ago, whw53 said:

Well, not yet but we do know from a ZCL they are exploring an apartment project in Newtowne adjacent to the tracks off Dineen (see Newtowne\Carver thread)

In addition i got another ZCL for us filed earlier this week - this one's just right down the st at 6 s 1st. There Dobrin is exploring a 5 story building according to this.

https://energov.richmondgov.com/EnerGov_Prod/SelfService/richmondvaprod#/plan/a8585fc3-118c-48bb-9ce0-96d2d41b9cf2?tab=contacts

Multi-family, 11-50 units. Existing use: Parking Lot. Proposed use: Multi-family. Build 5 story apartment building with 5 onsite parking spaces, 27 units against property line between 4 S 1st due to easement on property of 4 S 1st and at rear with no setbacks required in TOD-1.

 

 

 

 

 

edit - note this is directly adjacent to Foushee Mews, that parking lot on west half of this block is currently torn up. Wow 'lower' monroe ward south of main is really starting to fill in with that project, One Canal, now potentially this.

Okay! That's good - glad to see more development on the way.

My only and biggest concern - can we get some height going in there? I'm worried that a significant portion of developable lots in Monroe Ward will start to fill up with 5 to 8 story buildings - leaving the possibility of 12-story (plus??) buildings increasingly slim. I'm glad we're seeing these projects - but I'll be much happier when we get some development that boosts height in this part of the ward.

[I miss RVA]

Interesting article/commentary in today's Richmond BizSense. Nice to see Ed Slipek getting published post-Style Weekly. I didn't realize he was teaching at VCU.

https://richmondbizsense.com/2021/12/03/guest-commentary-new-restaurants-highlight-arts-districts-resiliency/

[whw53]

They've begun tearing up the pavement at Pine crest site - that's it, ima call it - this one's flipped orange. 

Edited December 5, 2021 by whw53

[I miss RVA]

2 hours ago, whw53 said:

They've begun tearing up the pavement at Pine crest site - that's it, ima call it - this one's flipped orange. 

YES!!!!!!!!!!!  

Anyone up for snagging a few new pix of the pavement being ripped up?

[Brent114]

Is that the one on Grace? 

I looked at the site a few days ago.  It looked  like the lot was being used as a staging  site for utilities work in the area (spools of gas line were stacked on site along with large concrete sewer  boxes- not sure what to call them).  I feared it would be a while before construction started thinking that the land was being rented out to the construction company replacing utilities in the area.  The utility pole in the middle of the lot was still carrying power lines too. 
 

Torn up asphalt is defiantly a good sign that work is starting. 

Edited December 5, 2021 by Brent114

[I miss RVA]

I wonder if they'll put a construction cam up?

[I miss RVA]

Just wondering how the dirt-turning at the Pinecrest site is going? Has anyone wandered in that direction? Would there be any chance of some new pix to see the fresh, new activity there?

[whw53]

9 hours ago, I miss RVA said:

Just wondering how the dirt-turning at the Pinecrest site is going? Has anyone wandered in that direction? Would there be any chance of some new pix to see the fresh, new activity there?

I apologize - I think @Brent114 may have been correct. It may be  being used as a staging area for utility work in the area right now. What i thought was a backhoe tearing up pavement may have been sifting fill materials they have stored in the back corner of the site.

HOWEVER I do think that that utility work is being done to accommodate this new development. See here - https://energov.richmondgov.com/EnerGov_Prod/SelfService/richmondvaprod#/plan/54897de2-0bac-4bf8-bf3e-32bdd44f3e39

And we do have a building plan submittal submitted 12\2 for the building foundation - https://energov.richmondgov.com/EnerGov_Prod/SelfService/richmondvaprod#/plan/1f3b3761-4d49-4e1c-bcb2-eb9ba8d60c80

So we are moving - I'm going to leave it orange. 

Edited December 9, 2021 by whw53

[I miss RVA]

1 hour ago, whw53 said:

I apologize - I think @Brent114 may have been correct. It may be  being used as a staging area for utility work in the area right now. What i thought was a backhoe tearing up pavement may have been sifting fill materials they have stored in the back corner of the site.

HOWEVER I do think that that utility work is being done to accommodate this new development. See here - https://energov.richmondgov.com/EnerGov_Prod/SelfService/richmondvaprod#/plan/54897de2-0bac-4bf8-bf3e-32bdd44f3e39

And we do have a building plan submittal submitted 12\2 for the building foundation - https://energov.richmondgov.com/EnerGov_Prod/SelfService/richmondvaprod#/plan/1f3b3761-4d49-4e1c-bcb2-eb9ba8d60c80

So we are moving - I'm going to leave it orange. 

Good to know! Thanks, @whw53 .

[I miss RVA]

No real update -just a new bit of reporting on the Hotel Jefferson's request to demolish the old Second Baptist Church on Franklin Street. I can see both sides to this argument. I'm not at all a preservationist, but I'd love to see the building somehow saved. It's a one-of-a-kind building in RVA and in the Commonwealth - and despite its condition, a real landmark. At the same time, I get the hotel folks' point - they've done pretty much all they can - and the cost of trying to adaptively reuse it makes absolutely no financial sense to them (I gather they would take a tremendous loss in terms of how much it would cost to renovate it, particularly if they have no use for the building) - and now the structure is unsafe and is starting to fall apart, presenting a legit danger to the public. 

As much as I really would love to see this beautiful old building saved, I have a hard time arguing with what William Goodwin, chairman of Historic Hotels, had to say on the matter. 

From the RTD article:

"What has happened is the building has deteriorated even more to where I'm worried about a safety issue for people, whether a wall falls down or piece of roof falls down. So it's just time to sort of move on," Goodwin said.

"On the one hand, I'm sorry. I truly am because I like to preserve stuff and I think I've done my part over the years," he said. "But on the other hand, there's a practical side you'd have to eventually get to, which is one of those things where at least I don't have any problems of saying I tried hard. We have gone through every idea you can come up with, a least all we could come up with, and none of it made financial or even close to financial sense."

"We looked at it for bedrooms. We looked at it for a ballroom. We looked at it for a conferences center. We never could even come close to justifying it," Goodwin said.

"We've tried literally for 25 years or more to find a way to make it reasonably productive," he said. "I try helping the community. I am not an anti-community guy. I'm not an anti-architectural protection guy. But at some point, you have to deal with reality and this is one of those situations."

Are the preservationists going to pony up whatever money is needed to offset whatever undo costs Historic Hotels might incur if they are somehow "forced" to save the building? (Of COURSE they won't!) If they seriously want this building saved, then let them put their money where their mouths are. Sit down with Historic Hotels - hammer out how much it would cost to renovate/save the building over-and-above whatever H.H. was going to spend otherwise - and then let the preservationists pay H.H. to keep and fix up the building. Nothing unfair at all about that, IMNSHO.

City Council ruled (albeit nearly 30 years ago) that they (Historic Hotels) have the right to demolish the building, given that they privately own it. At what point is it legally or ethically correct to step in and "force" Historic Hotels to save this building at a loss? Yeah - I know the city could offer tax write-offs (at least in terms of property tax) - but still. At what point does fiduciary "responsibility" or "obligation" come into play vs private ownership of property? Is it not just as much being a "good citizen" to ensure the public is safe as it is to ensure the public has a pretty building to look at?  These are the very arguments where I fall in on the anti-preservation side so many times - because I don't agree that owners or private property should be potentially harmed financially for what only SOME (not all) would deem to be "greater public good" - and that "good" is very arbitrary and quite selective at best.

Again, I personally would love to see this building saved - but not at undo expense to the folks who own the building and/or the property. Nor should they be forced to sell it if they don't want to.

https://richmond.com/business/the-jefferson-hotel-wants-to-tear-down-the-historic-second-baptist-church-but-preservationists-want/article_1a4e23d7-7af3-502c-a585-310f44a61d56.html?utm_source=richmond.com&utm_campaign=%2Fnewsletter-templates%2Fdaily-headlines&utm_medium=PostUp&utm_content=0ec7e032dd1e4ec101109fd5c9cd7c5c0a175c41

Edited December 11, 2021 by I miss RVA

[Brent114]

They’ve had 30 years to sell it or donate it. 
 

What are their plans after they demolish it? Does it suddenly become feasible to build rooms/ballrooms/convention space from scratch?  I’m still upset about the loss of the school board or department of education (I forget what it was, was something related to education) building that was located beside this.  
 

I always wanted the VMFA to do something with this old church.  Would be a great satellite gallery.  Expensive I know but building a world class city isn’t cheap and I’m tired of cheap-ass (and tacky) people purposefully allowing buildings to fall into disrepair (I’m looking at you, you trashy club a few blocks west on Franklin) so that they can tear them down to make room for parking. 

Edited December 11, 2021 by Brent114

[123fakestreet]

Yep it's an amazing building that would great to save, but if no one wants it and it's got tons of maintenance issues at a certain point life goes on and it's gotta be torn down.  Let all the people who are demanding it be saved put their money where their mouth is and have them create a non profit to buy, restore, operate and maintain it. Somehow I don't see that happening. 

Edited December 11, 2021 by 123fakestreet

[I miss RVA]

4 hours ago, Brent114 said:

They’ve had 30 years to sell it or donate it. 
 

What are their plans after they demolish it? Does it suddenly become feasible to build rooms/ballrooms/convention space from scratch?  I’m still upset about the loss of the school board or department of education (I forget what it was, was something related to education) building that was located beside this.  
 

I always wanted the VMFA to do something with this old church.  Would be a great satellite gallery.  Expensive I know but building a world class city isn’t cheap and I’m tired of cheap-ass (and tacky) people purposefully allowing buildings to fall into disrepair (I’m looking at you, you trashy club a few blocks west on Franklin) so that they can tear them down to make room for parking. 

My dear friend - With all due respect, what difference does it make what their plans are after they demolish the building? It's their property. So long as they aren't violating zoning ordinances, they can do with the property as they wish, whether or not we agree with how they use it. Sure - they've had 30 years to sell it, but they haven't. That's the reality. Building a world class city isn't Historic Hotels' responsibility. Why should they be forced to shoulder the burden of what only SOME consider part of what it takes to build a world class city if it's not what they want to do with their own property?

Let me ask you - would you support the folks who own the property upon which the Foushee Mews are being developed to be "forced" either to build something large-scale/high-density (i.e., high rise) or to sell if they were unwilling to do so? Or do you support them being able to develop the property as they please, provided it meets proper zoning requirements?  Why? 

It's no different with H.H. and ownership of both the SBC building and the property upon which it sits. And please spare me the "no, but this is different - this is a historic building" argument. IT'S NOT DIFFERENT. It's about the private ownership of property and the ability of a property owner to develop said property in whatever way said owner desires, so long as it falls within legal zoning requirments. They're not planning to put a toxic waste dump or a nuclear power plant on that corner.

Historic Hotels owns the building. They own the property. They can develop it as they choose. That's the bottom line. I'm sorry if preservationists don't like that fact. But it's a fact.

Look - I personally want to see the building saved. It is a grand building -- and most importantly, one-of-a-kind not only in RVA but in all of Virginia. If I owned it, I'd be doing whatever I could to try to find a way to renovate it and use it. But I don't own it. Even as non-preservationist as I am, I would be putting every possible effort into saving the building. But I don't own it. 

As I said previously - and as @123fakestreetechoed, if the preservationists are so keen on saving the building, let them assemble a non-profit with sufficient financial resources to both purchase the building from Historic Hotels and to invest in the renovation and restoration. I would have no problem with that -- PROVIDED -- Historic Hotels sells OF THEIR OWN VOLITION - and are NOT strong-armed into selling (and particularly for a low-ball offer). Neither the city, nor the state nor the preservationists have the right to come in and try to legally "force" them to sell the building or the property. And we all know eminent domain does not apply.

Let's just be real here and face the fact that it's just time to move on. I don't want to see the building demolished - but that's how it may end up.

Edited December 11, 2021 by I miss RVA

[Brent114]

In what fantasy world do you live in which people can do with their land whatever they want? 
 

I don’t care if they tear it down just don’t feed me bull crap about how a building they allowed to rot for 30 years is no longer salvageable.  The same argument was made about the Jefferson Hotel not too long ago. 
 

It matters what they do after demolition because if a ballroom suddenly becomes feasible then the whining was just a  charade, which…of course it is so perhaps it is moot.  To  those saying that the preservationists should pony up the money,  they tell us that the building isn't salvageable then they’ll put it on the market for $2million.  Of course they have every right to do this, but it still makes them tacky and we need not shed a single tear for their manufactured situation. 

Edited December 11, 2021 by Brent114

[Downtowner]

31 minutes ago, Brent114 said:

In what fantasy world do you live in which people can do with their land whatever they want? 
 

I don’t care if they tear it down just don’t feed me bull crap about how a building they allowed to rot for 30 years is no longer salvageable.  The same argument was made about the Jefferson Hotel not too long ago. 
 

It matters what they do after demolition because if a ballroom suddenly becomes feasible then the whining was just a  charade, which…of course it is so perhaps it is moot.  To  those saying that the preservationists should pony up the money,  they tell us that the building isn't salvageable then they’ll put it on the market for $2million.  Of course they have every right to do this, but it still makes them tacky and we need not shed a single tear for their manufactured situation. 

The woe is me people have got to stop with this. If people want to whine and complain be proactive and buy the property and stop whining. I get so tired of people whining and being nothing to the table in the way of being proactive. If people want to save it put the money to the table and do what you want with it. Like they said if it’s in that bad of shape and it falls on someone with the preservationists trying to stop that’s on them for holding up progress and letting a piece of the building or the entire thing falling or causing and accident or safety issue. I swear if this thing gets torn down I guarantee the preservationist would stand inside of it or in front of construction equipment while being demolished. Sometimes I just don’t understand people and the length they will go to do stuff like this. It’s like their mind has no logic in stuff like this or they just don’t care to see logic and want to bicker like always. It’s the main issue of the nimbys they bring nothing to the table on a project other than shoot everything down. Why not be proactive and put your money where your mouth is. 

Edited December 11, 2021 by Downtowner

[I miss RVA]

1 hour ago, Brent114 said:

In what fantasy world do you live in which people can do with their land whatever they want? 
 

I don’t care if they tear it down just don’t feed me bull crap about how a building they allowed to rot for 30 years is no longer salvageable.  The same argument was made about the Jefferson Hotel not too long ago. 
 

It matters what they do after demolition because if a ballroom suddenly becomes feasible then the whining was just a  charade, which…of course it is so perhaps it is moot.  To  those saying that the preservationists should pony up the money,  they tell us that the building isn't salvageable then they’ll put it on the market for $2million.  Of course they have every right to do this, but it still makes them tacky and we need not shed a single tear for their manufactured situation. 

WHOAAAAAAAAAAAA!! My man!! Seriously? What's with the attitude? 

Sorry, my friend, I'm not the one living in a fantasy world. If you'll kindly re-read what I wrote - you'll notice that I said that the property owners can do with their land whatever they wish PROVIDED IT IS WITHIN THE LEGAL BOUNDS AND PROVISIONS OF HOW THE LAND IS ZONED. Go... have a look... make sure I said that, yeah? I just double-checked ... it's in there. But an extra set of eyes wouldn't hurt, just to make sure I didn't dream that I wrote it.

That's not fantasy - that's how the world works. Where did I write anywhere saying that a property owner is exempt from conforming to certain agreed-upon norms, rules and regulations? That's why we have zoning laws. Everything fits within specific frameworks.

C'mon, my man - relax. Let's hit a (virtual) pub and have a few cold ones or something with a good college football game on one of the tellys. It's not THAT big a deal.  Anyway - again, if you'll kindly re-read what I wrote, I'M ON YOUR TEAM in wanting this building saved, brother.  Personally, I'd love to see this grand old lady renovated & restored. It's one of the few buildings that I legit am very much saddened to see potentially heading for the wrecking ball. (And anyone who actually knows me knows damn well it takes a LOT for me to say that, because I am NOT a preservationist AT ALL - by ANY stretch of the imagination. I'm 100% all-in for progress, verticality, growth, etc. So for me to say that about this building should tell you something about how special the building is to me.)   

Truly, it's one of a kind in the city and in the state -- and it will be a tremendous loss to all of us if it goes.

THAT SAID - I'm just saying - I also 100% support the property owner if he wishes not to save it - and I advocate that if organizations want to try to "force" him to do so, then they should buy the property at HIS asking price and do it themselves.

Again ... that's just reality, my man.

Edited December 11, 2021 by I miss RVA

[wrldcoupe4]

Do you 100% support a  property owner when they build a 5 story building instead of a 12 or 20? I mean, it’s their property.  
 

you are technically right that they can tear it down if they want, but that doesn’t mean there is something wrong with people wanting to save it. “Well they should buy it and save it themselves if they like it so much”. LOL. As if Goodwin would ever sell this. 
 

The Jefferson has many surface lots they could repurpose if they’d wish instead of tearing this down. It’s always seemed odd to me to have one of the top hotels in the country surrounded by a sea of parking lots. As nice as the Jefferson is, that’s pretty lame to be honest.  

[Downtowner]

1 hour ago, wrldcoupe4 said:

Do you 100% support a  property owner when they build a 5 story building instead of a 12 or 20? I mean, it’s their property.  
 

you are technically right that they can tear it down if they want, but that doesn’t mean there is something wrong with people wanting to save it. “Well they should buy it and save it themselves if they like it so much”. LOL. As if Goodwin would ever sell this. 
 

The Jefferson has many surface lots they could repurpose if they’d wish instead of tearing this down. It’s always seemed odd to me to have one of the top hotels in the country surrounded by a sea of parking lots. As nice as the Jefferson is, that’s pretty lame to be honest.  

I’m with you 100 percent.  I highly doubt Goodwin would even entertain the idea of selling it. You do bring a very good and big point It blows my mind the Jefferson doesn’t build a parking deck for all of its guests. It would save a lot of time and money instead of building surface lot after surface lot not to mention not urban at all. At least you can make a parking deck urban. 

[I miss RVA]

4 hours ago, wrldcoupe4 said:

Do you 100% support a  property owner when they build a 5 story building instead of a 12 or 20? I mean, it’s their property.  
 

you are technically right that they can tear it down if they want, but that doesn’t mean there is something wrong with people wanting to save it. “Well they should buy it and save it themselves if they like it so much”. LOL. As if Goodwin would ever sell this. 
 

The Jefferson has many surface lots they could repurpose if they’d wish instead of tearing this down. It’s always seemed odd to me to have one of the top hotels in the country surrounded by a sea of parking lots. As nice as the Jefferson is, that’s pretty lame to be honest.  

Coupe -

1.) -- Do I support a 5-story building sted 12 or 20:  if your question is aimed at me, then yes, of course I do, 100%.  Why wouldn't I? It's their property. I don't have to like what they build. But it's theirs to do with as they please. Take Foushee Mews - I'm not at all thrilled that it's just a bunch of townhouses that are 3 or 4 stories tall and not something significantly larger/taller/denser - a complete and utter gross underutilization of space IMNSHO -  BUT -  I support the developer's/owner's right to build as desired. Doesn't mean I have to like it (Yes - it's preferable to a vacant lot, but I still don't like that it's not something significantly bigger!) - but I do 100% support the owner building it if that's what the owner wants to do. Not liking something and not supporting the right of the person to make it happen are two entirely different things - and in this case, apples and oranges. (Sorry to disappoint you, amigo.)

2a.) -- Wanting the building saved:  Let me ask you a question: How/why is it that somehow in what I wrote previously, folks apparently aren't reading/grasping the part where I clearly stated that I ALSO WANT THE BUILDING SAVED??? I really do wish folks would open their eyes and read EVERYTHING that was written and not just cherry pick whatever fits their counternarrative. If you (or anyone) could kindly help me understand how and why that message isn't clear as a bell, I'd greatly appreciate it!

2b.) -- Buy it themselves: Laugh all you want, my friend. Regardless, I stand by what I said. If the preservationists want it so desperately, let them find the money to buy it and save it. We all know there's no way in hell that's going to happen. Tbh, I would rather they at least TRY something along those lines instead of either trying to force the current owner's hand or gather all their NIMBY friends to kvetch and moan about it. If these folks are so connected, then why not try to recruit a deep-pocketed investor who could approach Historic Hotels about the property?  Mind you, even if they found Daddy Warbucks (or a Mama Starbucks!) who wanted to swoop in like the preservationist knight in shining armor, there's no guarantee H.H. would bite at an offer. BUT IT'S DEFINITELY WORTH A TRY! 

3.) -- Hotel Jefferson/sea of parking lots/lame: I couldn't agree more with you, my friend. I've lamented this for decades - going back to the late-70s and early-mid 80s when I attended some events there. I recall wondering how and why such a wonderful landmark hotel could be surrounded by a sea of parking lots. The ambiance of the entire neighborhood is totally schvach to say the least!

Okay - I'm going to state this one more time for everyone -- hopefully this will clear up any confusion: I'M ON THE SIDE OF SAVING THE BUILDING! I DON'T WANT TO SEE IT TORN DOWN. CAPISCE?? 

Edited December 12, 2021 by I miss RVA

[Icetera]

If they are demolishing this building then they better give up the private street.  That disconnect of the city grid is absolutely frustrating.

[I miss RVA]

1 hour ago, Icetera said:

If they are demolishing this building then they better give up the private street.  That disconnect of the city grid is absolutely frustrating.

100% agreed.

[whw53]

Our inside guy at Walter Parks has some new renderings up - looks like the YMCA lot at SE corner of Adams & Grace (15 W Grace) is set for a 6 story building.  Hopefully the larger  lot at Foushee and Grace can get us something a bit higher now but this is really an attractive structure rendered here.  

 

Edited December 20, 2021 by whw53

[I miss RVA]

Okay - given the parcel, I'm kinda not surprised. I just hope this 5, 6, 7, 8 story thing doesn't become a trend. I'd like to see some buildings at least in the teens (13, 14, 15 stories or taller) rising -- particularly in Monroe Ward. I'm fearful the trend will be that legit high rises could end up being few and far between for whatever ridiculous reason.

So - yeah, this is nice. But I can't help but feel a little troubled by it.

Edited December 20, 2021 by I miss RVA