The Fan / Museum District

[ancientcarpenter]

16 hours ago, 123fakestreet said:

They look nice and like they will fit the neighborhood well. But a bunch are basically facing the expressway, and another group are in an alley. 

From someone who lives (and regularly walks) that area, I'm a bit disappointed that the design is essentially creating a bubble instead of it being wrapped into the existing Fan community. I know the property itself is in an alley but it has full control over basically making the alley into a one-way street if they choose a proper design for it. 

I understand the highway (and noise) is a concern so they are trying to move the buildings as far away from highway as possible but basically giving the Fan neighborhood a "look at my garage you peasants" design is poor planning. The "backyard" of this design has a walkway and even a small green area - this should be the front (away from highway, "alley" area) area of the design and create a better community feel.

In my view, and many disagree, if you're going to build downtown you need to take community into consideration and not just your community design for that development. To be politically incorrect: Lots of boomers coming to live in the city for retirement and they are hilariously failing at creating suburbia in the city. I see neighbors move into row homes that are attached to other row homes and build a 5ft fence in the front yard up to the sidewalk. Why move to the city to build a suburban style fence? Is it because of those scary BLM rioters who are constantly burning RVA down every night and DeStrOyiNg HiStOry?! 

 

/rant over.

Love the development..just wish they weren't creating bubble pockets within our city's communities. The exact reason why people want to move to the city is for community and rubbing shoulders with people... build porches that face your neighbors and community (on ground floor) so it creates conversation and engagement among neighbors in the community. When did the architecture design world make this massive change from hanging out on porches and striking up conversations with neighbors to "go into your house and never come out / never see your neighbor" design? Very disappointing. 

 

/ran now over

Edited December 20, 2022 by ancientcarpenter

[Icetera]

2 hours ago, ancientcarpenter said:

From someone who lives (and regularly walks) that area, I'm a bit disappointed that the design is essentially creating a bubble instead of it being wrapped into the existing Fan community. I know the property itself is in an alley but it has full control over basically making the alley into a one-way street if they choose a proper design for it. 

I understand the highway (and noise) is a concern so they are trying to move the buildings as far away from highway as possible but basically giving the Fan neighborhood a "look at my garage you peasants" design is poor planning. The "backyard" of this design has a walkway and even a small green area - this should be the front (away from highway, "alley" area) area of the design and create a better community feel.

I am not quite understanding this complaint.  Given that they are utilizing the existing alley, if they were to reorient the new homes then the existing homes would become the purveyors of "look at my garage you peasants," which would be even more unsightly than the rear of these new structures.  The current design maximizes units facing each other while best fitting the patterns of the prior existing grid.  If they refaced, then additional auto-oriented paved surface would have to be created to accommodate the garages and infrastructure, cutting down on pedestrian/green space.  One thing that is missing, that I hope they incorporate, is complete pedestrian pathing from the Addison bridge to Greyland Ave. along the expressway-adjacent alley.

[I miss RVA]

7 hours ago, ancientcarpenter said:

Lots of boomers coming to live in the city for retirement and they are hilariously failing at creating suburbia in the city.

 

Well said. Two thoughts:

1.) Having turned 60, I'm TECHNICALLY a boomer -- I was born at the very tail end of the Baby Boomer generation (I think it ended in '64, I was born in '62)

2.) Recreating suburbia in the city: it's a HUGE problem, IMNSHO, and it absolutely needs to stop. Mind you, our good friends at TRP unfortunately seem to have very little difficulty (and very few qualms) about attempting to do just that (witness west of A.A. Blvd across from the Diamond District and the SW corner of Semmes and Cowardin Avenues as exhibits A and B).

Edited December 20, 2022 by I miss RVA

[wrldcoupe4]

It's an awkwardly shaped site and seems urban to me. I must be missing something.  They are creating courtyards on the fronts of the buildings to help with density, kind of like this one I think, which doesn't feel suburban: http://www.johannasdesign.com/mews

[Virginian11]

12 hours ago, ancientcarpenter said:

From someone who lives (and regularly walks) that area, I'm a bit disappointed that the design is essentially creating a bubble instead of it being wrapped into the existing Fan community. I know the property itself is in an alley but it has full control over basically making the alley into a one-way street if they choose a proper design for it. 

I understand the highway (and noise) is a concern so they are trying to move the buildings as far away from highway as possible but basically giving the Fan neighborhood a "look at my garage you peasants" design is poor planning. The "backyard" of this design has a walkway and even a small green area - this should be the front (away from highway, "alley" area) area of the design and create a better community feel.

In my view, and many disagree, if you're going to build downtown you need to take community into consideration and not just your community design for that development. To be politically incorrect: Lots of boomers coming to live in the city for retirement and they are hilariously failing at creating suburbia in the city. I see neighbors move into row homes that are attached to other row homes and build a 5ft fence in the front yard up to the sidewalk. Why move to the city to build a suburban style fence? Is it because of those scary BLM rioters who are constantly burning RVA down every night and DeStrOyiNg HiStOry?! 

 

/rant over.

Love the development..just wish they weren't creating bubble pockets within our city's communities. The exact reason why people want to move to the city is for community and rubbing shoulders with people... build porches that face your neighbors and community (on ground floor) so it creates conversation and engagement among neighbors in the community. When did the architecture design world make this massive change from hanging out on porches and striking up conversations with neighbors to "go into your house and never come out / never see your neighbor" design? Very disappointing. 

 

/ran now over

You sound like a boomer judging your neighbors for their fence…just sayin

[ancientcarpenter]

15 hours ago, wrldcoupe4 said:

It's an awkwardly shaped site and seems urban to me. I must be missing something.  They are creating courtyards on the fronts of the buildings to help with density, kind of like this one I think, which doesn't feel suburban: http://www.johannasdesign.com/mews

I think my biggest qualm about this is that it's a courtyard for them, not anyone else. It creates a bubble and excludes the rest of the neighbors nearby. Essentially creating a "condo neighborhood" within the neighborhood - for people who moved to the city to be in the city.

They can do anything they want of course. Just wish there was more consideration to the city and neighbors. If you're moving here for city things like being in the community (aka what cities are) then don't make your own isolated bubble while also feeding off of the city. Parasitic feel to me. 

 

Even the "my porch is on the 2nd floor or rooftop" thing reeks of "I look down on you" (literally) from these designs. I get it, they need the garage so it's not a fair complaint in THIS development but many new developments are not building porches on the first floor...and even when they do the porches barely fit a chair.

Edited December 21, 2022 by ancientcarpenter

[whw53]

How is it restricted from anyone else using it? I'm confused by the knee-jerk reaction here based on a couple initial renderings. Would it really be any different from ScuffleTown Park - just because something is hidden doesn't make it exclusive - cities should have quirky little pocket parks here and there, right?  

Also, the second story porches or sky porches as I've heard them called - that's a design choice. It's more modern, but people simply like that. I'm not sure having a ground level porch or this or that design element is the final say on what brings a 'community together' - and whatever that  really means. If so - its probably surface level.  Urban front porches do not have a widespread architectural heritage outside of the southern united states. 

Edited December 21, 2022 by whw53

[I miss RVA]

2 hours ago, whw53 said:

How is it restricted from anyone else using it? I'm confused by the knee-jerk reaction here based on a couple initial renderings. Would it really be any different from ScuffleTown Park - just because something is hidden doesn't make it exclusive - cities should have quirky little pocket parks here and there, right?  

Also, the second story porches or sky porches as I've heard them called - that's a design choice. It's more modern, but people simply like that. I'm not sure having a ground level porch or this or that design element is the final say on what brings a 'community together' - and whatever that  really means. If so - its probably surface level.  Urban front porches do not have a widespread architectural heritage outside of the southern united states. 

Regarding the urban front porches: from a design standpoint of this new development, I was impressed how many of the building fronts, architecturally, actually resemble many of the larger six-flats you see proliferating the western Fan and much of the Museum District, particularly along Arthur Ashe Boulevard - a truly "Richmond" fixture. When my first wife and I were dating, we lived together in one of those classic old six-flats on A.A. Blvd just north of W. Cary - and when we got married, we lived in one on Kensington Avenue right across the street from the former Lee elementary school (now apartments, yes?) ... Very impressive that this new project will include those classic elements of Fan and Museum District architecture. Very clever design, IMO.

[ancientcarpenter]

Don't get me wrong: I like this design overall. It's better than most (if not all) other "major" developments that we've seen in RVA. They could have easily just thrown up a 5over1 structure with cheap brown cladding and called it a day. I like this.

My only qualm is that I wish the green space area was in front of the homes instead of the backyard. This would invite other neighbors to the alley and create more community instead of essentially hiding the green space behind the buildings in their backyard. It's tough to critique this development because the highway plays a major part - nobody wants to be closer to highway than they need to. Also, changing this would majorly impact he garages which are needed since there is no parking in the alley.

I agree with everyone here. I love it. Just have some comments that really go beyond this development per say. Can we all agree that my neighbor stinks for putting up a 4ft fence in the front yard of a row house? I just need to moral support here I kid!

 

I, too, am glad that this looks like a typical fan historic development. Really cool look. Again, they could have cheaped out but looks like they are using brick all around?

Edited December 23, 2022 by ancientcarpenter

[I miss RVA]

2 hours ago, ancientcarpenter said:

Don't get me wrong: I like this design overall. It's better than most (if not all) other "major" developments that we've seen in RVA. They could have easily just thrown up a 5over1 structure with cheap brown cladding and called it a day. I like this.

My only qualm is that I wish the green space area was in front of the homes instead of the backyard. This would invite other neighbors to the alley and create more community instead of essentially hiding the green space behind the buildings in their backyard. It's tough to critique this development because the highway plays a major part - nobody wants to be closer to highway than they need to. Also, changing this would majorly impact he garages which are needed since there is no parking in the alley.

I agree with everyone here. I love it. Just have some comments that really go beyond this development per say. Can we all agree that my neighbor stinks for putting up a 4ft fence in the front yard of a row house? I just need to moral support here I kid!

 

I, too, am glad that this looks like a typical fan historic development. Really cool look. Again, they could have cheaped out but looks like they are using brick all around?

Off topic - but I SOOOOOOOO love the holiday bear!!! He's SOOOOO cute!! I could use a little warmth at the moment - it was (according to the weather app on my phone) minus-11 in my neck of the woods late last night/early this morning - with wind chills approaching 40-below. And the temperature this afternoon (when last I checked) was 5-below - with wind chills 35-below. Ugh...  I'm freezing!

WHO unleashed Queen Elsa on us?

[whw53]

SUP filing last week seeks a 'boutique hotel' with 19 rooms at 1904 West Cary St. This is the site of Fritz Auto.

https://energov.richmondgov.com/EnerGov_Prod/SelfService/richmondvaprod#/plan/058a6ef7-72c8-4413-843b-754f2953a631

Sent from my SM-S908U1 using Tapatalk

[I miss RVA]

4 hours ago, whw53 said:

SUP filing last week seeks a 'boutique hotel' with 19 rooms at 1904 West Cary St. This is the site of Fritz Auto.

https://energov.richmondgov.com/EnerGov_Prod/SelfService/richmondvaprod#/plan/058a6ef7-72c8-4413-843b-754f2953a631

Sent from my SM-S908U1 using Tapatalk


 

Wow - this could be pretty cool! That, what, about a block east of Meadow, right?

[Flood Zone]

Sounds good. But what's the line between boutique hotel & fancy bed-and-breakfast? Probably under 19 rooms, but not much!

[I miss RVA]

9 minutes ago, Flood Zone said:

Sounds good. But what's the line between boutique hotel & fancy bed-and-breakfast? Probably under 19 rooms, but not much!

Size, most likely. When I think of a B&B, I think maybe 5 or 6 rooms - MAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYBE double digits? But not 19. 

[I miss RVA]

A new boutique hotel is planned for the 1900 block of W. Cary Street - a block east of Meadow. Wow - I LOVE this idea, particularly thinking in terms of what a small boutique hotel could do for the immediate neighborhood. Very exciting all the way around.

From today's Richmond BizSense:

https://richmondbizsense.com/2023/02/13/a-shyndigz-inn-sweets-shop-owners-planning-hotel-next-door-on-cary-st/

 

[ancientcarpenter]

I love how Shyndigz is single handedly holding down this stretch of Cary.... better known as the place where "Murder Mart" is.

Edited February 15 by ancientcarpenter

[I miss RVA]

UPDATE to a project we've featured previously on this thread:

Works is underway to replace the century-old RFD Station 12 at Addison & W. Cary Street. The old station is being demo'd - and the newer, bigger facility will be on the way. LOVE the design of the new station. This will be a fantastic upgrade and will be an awesome fit in the neighborhood.

From today's Richmond BizSense:

https://richmondbizsense.com/2023/03/17/demolition-starts-on-richmonds-oldest-fire-station/

 

[Rooster]

yeah, its definitely a nicer station and I understand they needed the upgrade - but damn I wish they could build it on an empty block (or tear down another less interesting building - like across the street). A renovation there would have been another iconic building in a string of pearls. 

[I miss RVA]

22 minutes ago, Rooster said:

yeah, its definitely a nicer station and I understand they needed the upgrade - but damn I wish they could build it on an empty block (or tear down another less interesting building - like across the street). A renovation there would have been another iconic building in a string of pearls. 

I hear you. Respectfully, I'm gonna counter that we don't need to save every old building. It doesn't make sense to try to save every single old brick. We gotta let some things go if this city is ever going to grow and thrive. Remember, my friend, the architect's axiom is "Form FOLLOWS function".  The mindset that form should somehow precede function is something that's held Richmond back for far too long.  What's coming to that parcel is FAR better than what's there now - and it'll be around long after we're both gone. I'd rather that the empty block you mentioned (or less interesting building for that matter) be replaced by a larger-scale multi-family residential and/or mixed use building that will boost the population density in that part of the city - something that's sorely lacking if Richmond's ever going to get it into gear and really grow.

Don't get me wrong - I totally hear where you're coming from. But RVA needs to move past the approach of trying to save every old brick and get on with the business of really growing this city and turning her from what she is now into something even more spectacular! 

Edited March 17 by I miss RVA

[Brent114]

I agree that not every building needs to be saved, but there are so many vacant lots left in Richmond that it is frustrating to watch the same lots get developed when lower density and undeveloped adjacent blocks go untouched.

 
This was  already a finished corner with an attractive building.  Directly across the street is a dumpy garage on a lot that is mostly a parking lot (garages/service stations are also necessary and I’m not in any hurry to run them out of the center of town).    The replacement of the fire station is both a good thing AND annoying   I do like the look of the new station and its presence will update the block.   It would be more interesting though  if the old station was being redeveloped while this new station was built on a vacant lot in the vicinity.   I do welcome the  update though. 

Edited March 18 by Brent114

[I miss RVA]

On 3/17/2023 at 9:23 PM, Brent114 said:

I agree that not every building needs to be saved, but there are so many vacant lots left in Richmond that it is frustrating to watch the same lots get developed when lower density and undeveloped adjacent blocks go untouched.

 
This was  already a finished corner with an attractive building.  Directly across the street is a dumpy garage on a lot that is mostly a parking lot (garages/service stations are also necessary and I’m not in any hurry to run them out of the center of town).    The replacement of the fire station is both a good thing AND annoying   I do like the look of the new station and its presence will update the block.   It would be more interesting though  if the old station was being redeveloped while this new station was built on a vacant lot in the vicinity.   I do welcome the  update though. 

I hear where you're coming from - and God knows how much I kvetch about all the wasteful surface parking lots and vacant, undeveloped (or even underdeveloped) parcels that are strewn alllllllll over the central part of the city. HOWEVER - there's one caveat about this redevelopment that is the golden nugget as to replacing the old fire station with this new, gorgeous fire station on the same parcel. The city OWNS the current parcel where the fire station is being redeveloped. It doesn't own those other blocks (vacant or under-developed). In order to do what's suggested (build the fire station on one of the vacant parcels and redevelop the old fire station into, say apartments), the city would have to first purchase one of the other parcels and then sell the current parcel.

Extremely impractical and no way that was gonna happen.

FAR BETTER to get this new fire station exactly where the old one was - AND - let's up the ante on some of those vacant and/or under-developed parcels: how 'bout a developer comes in, buys a couple of those parcels up and drops in a couple of really nice, six-story mixed-use or residential buildings! We'll get the population density boosted with an AWESOME trade-in of a wastefully undeveloped lot or two - AND - get a new fire station on the site of the old one without forcing the city to go through a ton of needless (and wasteful) red tape to buy and sell and all that rigamarole. Sounds like a winning plan to me! 

Edited March 20 by I miss RVA

[whw53]

https://richmondbizsense.com/2023/03/21/planning-commission-delays-vote-on-260-unit-museum-district-project/

[BigBobbyG]

I don’t like the way the wind seems to be blowing with this specific approval process. How can the rest of the city be expected to shoulder all the weight of densification (something I love and think  NEEDS to happen but admittedly not everyone does) when time and time again the museum district and fan finds a way to worm out of doing the same? They need to shoulder this as well. 
 

Hopefully they end up following the recommendations of the planners and approve this SUP without too many modifications. 

[I miss RVA]

3 hours ago, BigBobbyG said:

I don’t like the way the wind seems to be blowing with this specific approval process. How can the rest of the city be expected to shoulder all the weight of densification (something I love and think  NEEDS to happen but admittedly not everyone does) when time and time again the museum district and fan finds a way to worm out of doing the same? They need to shoulder this as well. 
 

Hopefully they end up following the recommendations of the planners and approve this SUP without too many modifications. 

!! Well said.

The comments section to the article really bears this out. There are one or two folks (apparently residents in/of the Museum District) - who are very vocal about it (and they are amassing HUGE numbers of down votes!!!) - one in particular is certainly preaching one of those all-too-familiar tropes of "I'm all in favor of density, BUT... "  --- In other words - "Density for thee but not for me."

The Planning Commission needs to get their heads screwed on straight and approve this project. Even the city planning staff wrote a letter in support of the development. Folks - we helped push the sandwich shop through in Byrd Park. I think it's time for the RVA/UP "YIMBYS" to step up to the plate and "flood the zone" with SUPPORT for this building! Let's do for this development what we did for the sandwich shop - that was ultimately approved! If the planners disallow this building, it will set a VERY bad precedent. The project will enhance the neighborhood on a multitude of fronts -- including, as the planning staff detailed, very possibly reducing incidents of speeding on Thompson Street by providing natural "breaks" that currently don't exist with a vacant, undeveloped parcel along that stretch of Thompson.

Folks - let's get to work and lend our voices to supporting this. E-mail, v-mail, snail-mail - in-person if you're there. Let's get behind this one and push hard until it's across the finish line!

Edited March 21 by I miss RVA

[ancientcarpenter]

1 hour ago, I miss RVA said:

!! Well said.

The comments section to the article really bears this out.

Don't over-think comments on the internet, especially from "news" sites. The most vocal person is complaining about no parking when it clearly states there are over 300+ parking spots being built. Most people simply aren't reading the article before they comment. 

 

If anyone was to walk around this particular area of the Museum they would see how deserted it is and how run down it is. There is no historical value to preserve (and this is coming from me, a Jackson Ward preservationist guy!). It's simply 1-2 story office buildings that are run down with empty parking lots. 

 

This development will bring lots of foot traffic... love it!

Edited March 21 by ancientcarpenter