Shockoe Bottom

[flaneur]

 

+1 to many of the above comments. this doesn't have to be an either/or between development and preservation. it really should be a nuanced both/and where we have a holistic, balanced approach and don't weaponize either. we need to keep a fair amount of the rich historic urban fabric we have while also growing. one of the unfortunate realities of modern development is that it's hard for many projects to pencil (make it financially viable for the developer) beyond the omnipresent " 5 over 1" concrete podium with five floors of wood above it flowering in so many cities. these are good for adding density and new residents, and you can vary the facades quite a bit, but they get repetitive real fast. many of the older buildings we just could not build economically today. so to get around just the 5 over 1s and try to get better urban design, this is where our TOD zoning overlay and other efforts to help increase land values, incentivize height, etc., give us a chance to enhance the urban fabric with new development. but all said, i'll still take new "5 over 1s" on surface parking lots as smart infill any day of the week. but if it takes out a row of decent buildings, then it gets complex. for example, look at the block on 805 w. cary st. development near dinamo. that's one where i wish the developer had kept the facades of the existing buildings on the block while adding 5 story density infill behind, instead of tearing down most of that block and building the "fugly" 5 over 1 there. 

Edited September 1, 2022 by flaneur

[I miss RVA]

6 hours ago, ancientcarpenter said:

 

Love this.

If I wanted to live in a suburban version of downtown I'd move to Charlotte. 

I love that RVAs character is engrained with preservation. Destroying something out of convenience to build generic 5story apartments isn't going to create a city with character...it's just going to give people boxes to sleep in.

 

I'm in the same boat... let's encourage development but not at the cost of deleting history.

Or better yet, let's build monuments of these torn down buildings so that we don't forget the history! sarcasm sorrrrry

Sorry my friend - you KNOW I have to push back. Respectfully, of course. I love you to death on here, mate - but you're leaving me little choice on some of these points.

Suburban version of downtown/comparison to Charlotte: That's a completely moot point because you know as well as I do - that's NOT going to happen. Richmond is built like a NORTHEASTERN CITY. What you're describing absolutely will not happen in Richmond any more than it will happen in Washington, Baltimore, Philadelphia, New York or Boston. I honestly don't know WHERE or HOW you think it will - because it won't. The kind of development you're talking about happens in places like Charlotte, Raleigh, Nashville, etc., - because for the most part, they don't have legacy urban footprints upon which to build. Richmond does. Why? Because it is an OLD - LEGACY city and it was developed FROM THE START - in the VERY SAME MANNER AS A NORTHEASTERN CITY. The modern-day boom towns of the Southeast started out with nothing. They were wide spots in the road before the urban-growth-gods decided to show favor upon them. So it stands to reason why they are developing the way they are. Richmond WILL NEVER DO THAT.  And you damn-well KNOW that just as much as I do!!!

You and I will probably debate this until we're both laid into the ground - and I know damn well I'll be the first one in the ground because I've got you by almost 30 years (I'm turning 60 next month). But brother - that argument is a non-sequitur when it comes to how central RVA will develop. There isn't a snowball's chance in Hell that at ANY POINT in your lifetime, your childrens' lifetimes, your grandchildrens' lifetimes that this "suburban downtown" kind of development a la Charlotte will happen here. I'm not a betting man, but if I were, I'd bet EVERYTHING I HAVE - that this will NEVER be an issue in Richmond. EVER.

RVA's character engrained in preservation: Fine - I like it as well, to about the same level that I like it in place like New York or here in Chicago. But we have ENOUGH OF IT. WE DON'T NEED MORE. WE HAVE PLENTY. Let's move on and BUILD and BUILD BIG!!!

Encourage development/not at cost of deleting history: Deleting history simply won't happen. Just because SOME - and I emphasize this - SOME - old buildings will have to go, doesn't mean we are deleting history. How is knocking down old buildings in Manchester or Scott's Addition "deleting history"? Cities grow. Cities change. Cities evolve. WE CANNOT and MUST NOT PREVENT RICHMOND FROM EVOLVING!!! TO DO SO IS WRONG ON EVERY POSSIBLE LEVEL! We CANNOT and MUST NOT attempt to lock RVA away in some kind of time bubble (my geodesic dome analogy) and keep us locked in the 1880s. That's just RIDICULOUS! 

Let me flip your argument around: We can encourage the preservation of LEGITIMATE history - but NOT a the cost of truncating (or worse - stopping) growth and development. And quite unfortunately, truncating/stopping growth and development has been part of what has held Richmond back SO severely over the past 50 years - and I HAVE WITNESSED IT WITH MY OWN EYES. Preservation Uber Alles has been a prevailing theme here - and it's been to our detriment.

Destroying something out of convenience/city with character: And what exactly do you suggest a property owner who needs to remove an old building to put a significantly larger structure on the property do? Are you advocating FORCING land-use (I don't mean proper zoning for things like public safety, etc.) JUST because of what a building looks like? THIS is one of the HUGE problems with the preservation movement. WHO decides what stays, what goes? WHO decides what can and cannot be built? I'm 100% opposed to this sort of draconian thinking.

Mind you - I have NO problem at all preserving places like Jackson Ward, Church Hill or specific buildings (like the Second Baptist Church on Franklin downtown) that have REAL, LEGIT historical significance. There are appropriate means and mechanisms with which to do so, and frankly, RVA has done a VERY good job in this area even as I would also argue that there have been catastrophic failures. Again, I point to what happened in Fulton Bottom as an example of where preservation SHOULD HAVE TAKEN PLACE!  As far as preserving something like Second Baptist: yes - there are workarounds - but at what cost? Again, I'm in the camp of wanting the building saved. HOWEVER - if a developer (or even the Hotel Jefferson guru who owns it now) wanted to take it down and build something there, technically it's his land, his building. How do we have the right to stop him? 

As for the whole "character" argument: Richmond already has PLENTY of character. What we lack is population, density, market size, businesses, a MAJOR international airport, hub rail service, amenities normally found in much larger markets, such as D.C. Now - I don't advocate mowing down all of the old buildings in the Arts District, for example, any more than you do. But at the same time, I am diametrically opposed to making "character" and "charm" as the PRIMARY consideration when it comes to driving development. Again, the architect's axiom - as far as I can determine - has NEVER been changed - "form FOLLOWS function".  That five-story apartment building may be a box for people to sleep in, but it's a HELL of a lot more beneficial to a neighborhood by bringing PEOPLE LIVING in said neighborhood than a 2-story 100-year-old-vacant storefront that may have stood in the way of that apartment building. As for "boxes" that people sleep in: I'll say to you exactly as I said to the guy in Oregon Hill (the uber-NIMBY dude who kvetches about EVERY KIND OF DEVELOPMENT in RVA whether or not it actually impacts Oregon Hill (which 99.999% of the time - it doesn't)) -- YOU LIVE IN A CITY. RICHMOND IS A CITY. CITIES HAVE TO GROW AND GET BIGGER. Sometimes that means "boxes" - I'd rather have the "boxes" and ALLL of the economic development benefit that comes with it than all of the pretty but essentially useless architectural charm in the city combined. Because while that "charm" and "character" may bring tourists - I want RESIDENTS. If folks come here and visit and spend money - fine. But at the end of the day, they all leave. I want people LIVING IN THE CITY!! I'd rather have 450,000 people LIVING in the city - making RVA a truly VIABLE 24-hour-365 city than to have thousands upon thousands of tourists come, bring burnt offerings of worship to "historic" architecture and then leave. Hell, my only problem with the boxes is that they're not BIGGER! I'd rather have 30-40-story boxes FULL of people than 5 or 8 story buildings. But whatever - RVA isn't there yet, and I question if I'll ever see her get there in my lifetime.

The point is: I get where you're coming from. We approach this from two entirely different perspectives. One is cultural (aesthetics, charm, character, etc.) and the other is purely economic (population growth, business growth, amenities that are available in larger cities, etc.)  And the truth lies somewhere in the middle. 

RVA can and likely will always have the best of BOTH worlds. And that, my friend, is an area where I think both of us are in 100% agreement! 

Oh - and I laughed out loud to your sarcasm - well done!

Edited September 1, 2022 by I miss RVA

[123fakestreet]

Whatever happened to Locks 7 and 8 along the Canalwalk at the old Reynolds building?

Progress on former BW3 Apts

 

[I miss RVA]

9 minutes ago, 123fakestreet said:

Whatever happened to Locks 7 and 8 along the Canalwalk at the old Reynolds building?

Progress on former BW3 Apts

 

Holy Bob the Builder, Batman! This building is REALLY progressing quickly!! Thanks SO much, @123fakestreetfor taking and posting this! 

ANNNND ... I second your question.  What's going on with the Tom Papa projects - Locks 7 & 8 and South Falls II & III? Does anyone have a read on any of those?

[123fakestreet]

Progress at Bakery Lofts

 

 

[I miss RVA]

5 minutes ago, 123fakestreet said:

Progress at Bakery Lofts

 

 

HOLY WOW, @123fakestreet I hereby nominate you for this week's "YOU DA MAN!!!" Award! (And I gladly invite and seconds to the motion to post in favor!)

WOW - SO glad to see things percolating along at the Bakery Lofts site!! Can't wait to see a structure start rising from the ground there soon.

Thank you SO much for taking and posting this, my friend! 

[Shakman]

On 9/23/2022 at 12:14 PM, 123fakestreet said:

Whatever happened to Locks 7 and 8 along the Canalwalk at the old Reynolds building?

Progress on former BW3 Apts

 

I hope they don't continue the metal panels up the residential portion and replace the existing panels.  It would be fine if this building were a continuous latrine.

Edited September 27, 2022 by Shakman

[Hike]

2 hours ago, Shakman said:

I hope they don't continue the metal panels up the residential portion and replace the existing panels.  It would fine if this building were a continuous latrine.

Yeah, that lower portion, just very uninviting, needs to be updated in some way, that has to be in the works because as is, who would want to enter that to get to the apartments.

[I miss RVA]

How are they using the loading dock bays? I can imagine if I lived there giving directions to my flat - "yeah, come to the third loading dock bay door and ring the buzzer..." 

[Hike]

6 minutes ago, I miss RVA said:

How are they using the loading dock bays? I can imagine if I lived there giving directions to my flat - "yeah, come to the third loading dock bay door and ring the buzzer..." 

Is this building historic in any way, using historic tax credits? If so, any change, other than cosmetic, is out. 

[rjp212]

Looks like the lot adjacent to Bakery Lofts is slated for Apartments as well.

https://energov.richmondgov.com/EnerGov_Prod/SelfService/richmondvaprod#/plan/bfc40363-6ddd-4141-9916-564df65a9d00?tab=locations

[I miss RVA]

21 minutes ago, rjp212 said:

Looks like the lot adjacent to Bakery Lofts is slated for Apartments as well.

https://energov.richmondgov.com/EnerGov_Prod/SelfService/richmondvaprod#/plan/bfc40363-6ddd-4141-9916-564df65a9d00?tab=locations

Well, THIS is certainly exciting!!

I'm curious what all this development might bring... I'm guessing these are the only details we have at this point?

Is this lot bound by any O&H restrictions or are the borders a little farther east? (or even just on the other side of 18th St.?) - What's the zoning for this lot? I can't recall - did Bakery Lofts require an SUP filing or was this part of the city's upzoning to TOD-1 for portions of the Bottom? (I know I have the Bottom's SAP floating around somewhere...)

Since the folks building Bakery Lofts went 12 stories on 17th Street - I'm curious what these folks might look to build?

Check out the property:

 

 

Edited October 12, 2022 by I miss RVA

[Icetera]

25 minutes ago, rjp212 said:

Looks like the lot adjacent to Bakery Lofts is slated for Apartments as well.

https://energov.richmondgov.com/EnerGov_Prod/SelfService/richmondvaprod#/plan/bfc40363-6ddd-4141-9916-564df65a9d00?tab=locations

That is part of the site currently being dug as part of Bakery Lofts where the commercial space and parking deck were to be positioned.  I wonder if they are now adding more units onto the deck?

[I miss RVA]

6 hours ago, Icetera said:

That is part of the site currently being dug as part of Bakery Lofts where the commercial space and parking deck were to be positioned.  I wonder if they are now adding more units onto the deck?

So here's are a few hypothetical questions that, absent actual details regarding this latest filing, we're just sort of blindly throwing darts at the dart board at the moment - but it's still worth speculation:

Do we know at this point if this property includes just that small area listed in the diagram as 1715 E. Grace - or - is it bigger to include the entire quarter of a block to the corner at 18th and Grace?

If so - as you suggested, Ice, will they simply add units over the parking deck - or is there the possibility of a second (I'm guessing smaller?) building that would be added to this project?

Is this filing part of the original bakery lofts development? Who actually filed the paperwork? (I'm trying to get back in via the city's portal to see if that was indicated - I don't remember seeing it - but the portal is down at the moment.)

I'll really be curious to know how many more units might be added.

[rjp212]

The original application has been updated to include the parcel where the tower is going, so I imagine it was just false alarm.

[majors2410]

There is so much ugly asphalt in that area, much of it not used for anything that they can build there for a very long time.

[Icetera]

On 6/27/2022 at 1:53 AM, Gexckos said:

 

 

I must have misunderstood the design and they are simply adding reference to the old bakery, as the building was completely gone as of this weekend.

[Icetera]

On 10/12/2022 at 1:34 PM, Icetera said:

That is part of the site currently being dug as part of Bakery Lofts where the commercial space and parking deck were to be positioned.  I wonder if they are now adding more units onto the deck?

They are currently installing rebar for the footings on the 18th St side (parking deck).  No activity yet for the actual tower lot but this fits their strategy from the Icon. 

[I miss RVA]

58 minutes ago, Icetera said:

They are currently installing rebar for the footings on the 18th St side (parking deck).  No activity yet for the actually tower lot but this fits their strategy from the Icon. 

I was wondering what the latest and greatest on Bakery Lofts might be. Thanks SO much for the update - you answered my question before I could even ask it. 

[eandslee]

This project is making great progress!  Courtesy of Ryan Ramsey of Richmond City Watch:

On 11/22/2022 at 4:43 PM, I miss RVA said:

I was wondering what the latest and greatest on Bakery Lofts might be. Thanks SO much for the update - you answered my question before I could even ask it. 

Bakery Lofts photo update.  Courtesy of Ryan Ramsey of Richmond City Watch:

[whw53]

CAR agenda for 12\20 shows a new combined new and rehab 5 story project in Shockoe Bottom at 1801 E Broad. 'The Bathhouse' will renovate the commercial structures on the site and tack on 3 stories above. It will also provide new commercial space along 18th. 

https://richmondva.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5956226&GUID=8C5AE5CC-C353-422F-99F9-8D87FEBBC3D6&Options=&Search=

It is a conceptual review so they are probably asking for more feedback before attempting to nail down the architectural detail. God speed.

 

From the applicant's report - 

The new infill construction will be located in what is now a parking lot behind the buildings, and is separated from the majority of the historic rear facades by 8-10 feet. A proposed new glass and steel structure will be located between the two existing buildings and serves as the primary entrance to the new construction, circulation stair, and connection between old and new. This glass and steel structure will be inset from the historic Broad Street facades. At 18th Street the new building will have commercial space on the ground floor, and is positioned to align with the Branch Public Baths façade. While the residential structures adjacent to the South are set back from the sidewalk, the ground floor commercial use for the new building is more in line with the siting of similar commercial structures in the neighborhood.

Edited December 7, 2022 by whw53

[I miss RVA]

4 minutes ago, whw53 said:

CAR agenda for 12\20 shows a new combined new and rehab 5 story project in Shockoe Bottom at 1801 E Main. 'The Bathhouse' will renovate the commercial structures on the site and tack on 3 stories above. It will also provide new commercial space along 18th. 

https://richmondva.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5956226&GUID=8C5AE5CC-C353-422F-99F9-8D87FEBBC3D6&Options=&Search=

It is a conceptual review so they are probably asking for more feedback before attempting to nail down the architectural detail. God speed.

 

From the applicant's report - 

The new infill construction will be located in what is now a parking lot behind the buildings, and is separated from the majority of the historic rear facades by 8-10 feet. A proposed new glass and steel structure will be located between the two existing buildings and serves as the primary entrance to the new construction, circulation stair, and connection between old and new. This glass and steel structure will be inset from the historic Broad Street facades. At 18th Street the new building will have commercial space on the ground floor, and is positioned to align with the Branch Public Baths façade. While the residential structures adjacent to the South are set back from the sidewalk, the ground floor commercial use for the new building is more in line with the siting of similar commercial structures in the neighborhood.

Wasn't 1801 E. Main where a developer was planning an 11-story residential building? Recall everyone was laughing a bit because it's zoned TOD-1 - but to sweeten the pot to get his project approved, he shaved a floor off the top to fit "under" the zoning regs.

Is this the same site?

[whw53]

@I miss RVAI mis-represented the location - I have edited the post. 1801 E BROAD

[I miss RVA]

22 minutes ago, whw53 said:

@I miss RVAI mis-represented the location - I have edited the post. 1801 E BROAD

Ahh - okay. That address makes more sense! WHEW! Glad to hear that. 

[I miss RVA]

If memory serves, there were never any rendering of the discussed 11-story building at 18th and Main, correct?