City Center / Virginia BioTech Park

[I miss RVA]

1 hour ago, eandslee said:

Uh, the hotel design and height of City Center Gateway Partners is AMAZING!

 

Yes it is!

Friends and neighbors, now THAT'S what I'm talkin' about!!  

[ancientcarpenter]

They're just renderings and I barely have had a chance to even read past the pictures at 7am here...but... so far I love the renderings. My only caution is that I see a lot of "been there done that" approach here. Unlike Diamond District, where they essentially plan to center a park that spans blocks and blocks to connect the entire neighborhood, a lot of these City Center designs are formed around "let's do grid and build for cars and then throw some bike lanes in there to be progressive." 

This is the "City Center" of RVA downtown. Walking and biking should be priorities over cars. Build for people, not for cars. It's why we just got rid of parking minimums. This is an opportunity to create Little Europe in our cities again in terms of walkability.

The lack of solar is a bit sad too.

Edited May 30, 2023 by ancientcarpenter

[wrldcoupe4]

Interesting take. I know one of the priorities of the city was to restore the grid. Are you saying the street grid is bad for pedestrians and cyclists? 

[ancientcarpenter]

2 hours ago, wrldcoupe4 said:

Interesting take. I know one of the priorities of the city was to restore the grid. Are you saying the street grid is bad for pedestrians and cyclists? 

The grid can be fine but it does make one think "did we go with the grid because it benefits cars or people?" Seeing how these renderings look like they are car centric (again, I could be wrong) it seems that it's the former instead of the latter, unfortunately. 

I think when you build/prioritize people over prioritizing cars the designers change their entire mindset on the idea of what and how to build this. I think Diamond District tries and does an okay job at that. Instead of having a strict grid that prioritizes cars, we see a "bendy flow" design because it's prioritizing people over cars (walking, parks, bikes, etc.). Again, nothing wrong with a grid as I've been to many cities in Europe that use grid and many don't even allows into the streets because it's so pedestrian focused... problem is when the grid is justified because the priority is cars is when it's a problem. 

These renderings are beautiful but remember we want to encourage walking and living there... these designs scream to me "big business first, people second" and when you look at it that way then you realize why they are so car focused on this City Center development. Quite a shame because, if anything, the Diamond District design fits the City Center more to me since it focuses so heavily on people over cars. 

 

edit: early morning means run on sentences - enjoy

Edited May 30, 2023 by ancientcarpenter

[Flood Zone]

13 hours ago, eandslee said:

Uh, the hotel design and height of City Center Gateway Partners is AMAZING!

And beyond that, I can't wait to take in the "RVA Concert Series" at "Live @ the Commons" and then get a bite to eat at "ZYBXX"!

[I miss RVA]

1 hour ago, Flood Zone said:

And beyond that, I can't wait to take in the "RVA Concert Series" at "Live @ the Commons" and then get a bite to eat at "ZYBXX"!

ANNNNNNNNND... let's not forget also walking across the commons to grab a couple of beverages as "Cold Pressed".  

[Flood Zone]

Richmond Bizsense article describes that bad boy as a 30-story hotel.

[wrldcoupe4]

Awesome - hotel floors are shorter than office, so it won't break any records, but still would look great in that location. I'd guess 350-375'. The Marriott for context is about 240' tall.

[123fakestreet]

56 minutes ago, wrldcoupe4 said:

Awesome - hotel floors are shorter than office, so it won't break any records, but still would look great in that location. I'd guess 350-375'. The Marriott for context is about 240' tall.

from sea level?

[I miss RVA]

58 minutes ago, wrldcoupe4 said:

Awesome - hotel floors are shorter than office, so it won't break any records, but still would look great in that location. I'd guess 350-375'. The Marriott for context is about 240' tall.

It would definitely have some prominence on the skyline, particularly given the elevation of that part of downtown AND - it would represent RVA's first 30-story building. How refreshing would it be to get something built that goes beyond the 20-plus story range. And if it were to reach, say, 375' with the angled crown shown in the rendering, that would make the building just 50-feet shorter than the CoStar tower's 425' (that's in REAL feet - not in "CoStar feet").

That 30-story hotel, btw, is part of the Gateway Partners proposal -- which ever since the renderings were made public, has been my top choice, with  My second choice is Richmond Community Development Partners, who also seem more than ready, willing and able to embrace significant density and height.

One other point that we should all keep in mind - this is only Phase 1 of City Center's overall redevelopment - and the footprint is quite small relative to the larger City Center district, in which even more density and height is being called for by the city. Phase 1 is just the handful of blocks from 5th to 7th streets and from Marshall to Leigh. The larger overall district includes from 7th to 10th streets (Broad to Leigh) and two properties south of Broad (4th and Broad - and E. Grace between 6th and 7th).

PHASE 1 FOOTPRINT

 

LARGER, OVERALL CITY CENTER DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT FOOTPRINT

Edited May 31, 2023 by I miss RVA

[Icetera]

3 hours ago, wrldcoupe4 said:

Awesome - hotel floors are shorter than office, so it won't break any records, but still would look great in that location. I'd guess 350-375'. The Marriott for context is about 240' tall.

I am estimating 390' at an elevation of 167', placing it 56 CoStarFeet™ taller than the James Monroe tower.  Even at your low-end 350', this hotel would become the most prominent tower.

[ancientcarpenter]

I can't wait to see the phase2+ renderings for the STEM high school and fire department.

Everything else is great but developing a new high school, especially STEM, is such a big win for the surrounding communities. And you know it will look very modern at least... hopefully futuristic touches to it? And if they build the fire department building similar to the design idea to what we see for the new fire dept building on Cary, we will see a beautiful design I hope

[I miss RVA]

2 hours ago, Icetera said:

 CoStarFeet™ 

My friend, you're getting RVA/UP silverware this week JUST for this alone! That's EPIC!!

[eandslee]

1 hour ago, I miss RVA said:

My friend, you're getting RVA/UP silverware this week JUST for this alone! That's EPIC!!

I so hope that Andy Florence reads this message board!  I want him to get angry and say, “I’ll show you CoStarFeet!” And then build something epic!  You do know that he has plans to do so much more real estate-wise in Richmond. 

[I miss RVA]

BOOKENDING FIFTH STREET

Folks, it's hard not to get excited when considering the prospects of how transformative two new buildings -- and two developments -- could be for downtown Richmond. IF - and that's a huge IF at the moment - but IF Gateway Partners is selected to develop City Center's Phase I - and IF they do, in fact, develop a 30-story "Gateway Hotel" at roughly 500 N. Fifth Street as part of the redevelopment, imagine how this hotel - particularly if it is, in fact, designed to the specs of the renderings will anchor the far  northern end of Fifth Street.

At the same time, the new CoStar tower promises to anchor the far southern end of Fifth Street at roughly 500 S. Fifth. 

Imagine these two major anchors for downtown RVA- City Center anchoring the far northern portion of downtown, and the CoStar campus anchoring the far southern portion of downtown along the riverfront. Two epic towers- 10 blocks apart. One at 500 N. 5th. The other at 500 S. 5th. The two buildings potentially close in relative height to the skyline, given the topographic change in elevation between the two locations.

Two PERFECT bookends for Fifth Street.

Check it out:

Edited June 1, 2023 by I miss RVA

[I miss RVA]

Not a ton of "new" news, but here's the RT-D's reporting on the four preliminary/conceptual renderings/proposals amongst those teams competing for the City Center redevelopment.

https://richmond.com/news/local/business/development/richmond-city-center-city-shares-proposals-from-development-finalists/article_ac9b1436-ffd3-11ed-aef5-c72f035a1556.html

[I miss RVA]

One more thought on the Gateway Partners rendering - and gents, I'm STRONGLY pulling for Gateway to be awarded the bid - not just because of the hotel tower that could absolutely be iconic on the RVA skyline (yes, that's a big reason - but I digress...)

In looking at this cropped rendering (that I used for the "Bookending Fifth Street" post) - I'm also struck by the size, height, density, buildout, massing, etc. of the residential towers. The three high-rises -- taken together as shown in the rendering -- really struck me of how impactful this part of the City Center redevelopment could be for downtown RVA -- what you see in this rendering is, albeit on a smaller/shorter scale, EXACTLY the kind of development I have witnessed built in downtown Chicago over the past 22 years. Why do I mention that correlation?

Because this -- Gateway's proposal -- is a legitimate "big city" project - the kind of project you'd routinely expect to see here in the Windy City or nowadays in the two Carolina cities or in Austin. In short, if Gateway wins the job and builds out the redevelopment to the specs shown in the conceptual renderings - it is absolutely a BIG deal for RVA. This is in the same stratosphere -- as a "big city" project -- for downtown as Avery Hall's proposed towers are on the Manchester riverfront. And as I mentioned for how Avery Hall's development would be transformative for Manchester, I believe every bit as much that Gateway's development of City Center can and likely will be equally transformative for downtown. 

Having "big city" projects is the Rubicon that Richmond is poised to cross - and she must, indeed, cross it! This has all the potential in the world as being THE next big step in advancing Richmond development to a much higher level. I'm praying Gateway wins the bid!

[Child2021]

https://www.virginiabusiness.com/article/activation-capital-plans-53m-innovation-center-in-richmond/

I'm going to miss the construction of this as I'm finishing up my time at Reynolds this year.

[Rooster]

14 hours ago, Child2021 said:

https://www.virginiabusiness.com/article/activation-capital-plans-53m-innovation-center-in-richmond/

I'm going to miss the construction of this as I'm finishing up my time at Reynolds this year.

I love to see this one happening - I dont know much about this group but expanding the biotech incubator and access to capital should have a positive impact! Really fits the Innovation District idea

[ancientcarpenter]

15 hours ago, Child2021 said:

https://www.virginiabusiness.com/article/activation-capital-plans-53m-innovation-center-in-richmond/

I'm going to miss the construction of this as I'm finishing up my time at Reynolds this year.

This article was posted 3 days ago. I can't believe this hasn't bee on "local" news here for us to catch on. Great find! RBS lacking...this is huge! 53m is not a small number. 

[wrldcoupe4]

https://richmondbizsense.com/2023/06/09/city-center-pitches-a-warm-up-for-the-next-round-of-downtown-redevelopment-guest-commentary/
 

geez Ed, tell us how you really feel about the neighborhood. Feel like maybe we should just cordon it off and call it a day. 

[Flood Zone]

Despite veering off into some silly, almost-certainly-cost-prohibitive tangents (why not create pedestrian tunnels?!?), he's fundamentally not wrong. Most of the sketches we've seen look great -- one in particular. But this is an area of town fighting an uphill battle, so to speak. There are certainly challenges inherent in this project.

[I miss RVA]

4 hours ago, Flood Zone said:

Despite veering off into some silly, almost-certainly-cost-prohibitive tangents (why not create pedestrian tunnels?!?), he's fundamentally not wrong. Most of the sketches we've seen look great -- one in particular. But this is an area of town fighting an uphill battle, so to speak. There are certainly challenges inherent in this project.

The good Dr. Slipek and I generally do NOT see eye-to-eye when it comes to Richmond development (I am basically his 180-degree polar opposite) - but on this piece in today's RBS, I find no fault with his position. He makes some good points - and I think the four groups vying for the City Center job do address some of them. I fully agree that it would be preferable to see people on sidewalks and not on catwalks - and frankly, we could just skip the underground tunnels altogether as far as I'm concerned. Tunnels are no better than catwalks - and he's spot on that people traffic on the street is what brings vitality.

@Flood Zone Would you care to share your selection of "one in particular"?  Asking just out of curiosity and for the sake of conversation. 

Personally - I find that all four offer something valuable to the concept of how to handle the Phase 1 redevelopment of City Center. Here's how I rank the four proposals from best to good but not the best:

1a.) City Center Gateway Partners -- the proposed 30-story hotel on 5th Street and adjacent 25-plus-story residential towers promise to be iconic on the RVA skyline.  The hotel is what gives this project (in my view) the narrowest of edge over my second choice (which is why I rank them not 1 & 2 but 1a and 1b - I'd be perfectly happy with either one.)

1b.) Richmond Community Development Partners -- I'd be 100% happy if this group got the nod as well. They bring tremendous focus on height, density and massing - and to some extent, even better than does Gateway. I LOVE the height and the iconic design for a tower at 7th and Clay. The two high-rise towers along Leigh Street also promise to be architecturally striking and could be signature buildings on the RVA skyline. And I love the massing and height of the hotel on 5th Street. In some ways, I actually prefer this to Gateway - but it's that GORGEOUS Gateway hotel and the two residential buildings that are what sell me on Gateway. Either way - this one is also a grand slam home run!

3.) Capstone Development -- solid emphasis on height and density and four really cool looking buildings with other outstanding features interwoven. This proposal is also a nice formula in a lot of ways, even if none of the taller buildings necessarily stands out as iconic in the ways that towers in both the CCGP and RCDP proposals do.

4.) Lincoln Property Company -- maybe it's a matter of needing more renderings - but I'm simply not seeing height and building massing in the LPC proposal that is there in the other three. Not saying this is an awful proposal - but of the four, this one hits me as "meh" - I don't see the "big city" component to it that I see in the other three (particularly Gateway and RCDP). This is the proposal that I see as "typical" for what Richmond tends to settle for - rather than thinking outside the box and going big and bold. MIND YOU - I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt that we don't necessarily have sufficient renderings to judge how height and massing is used - but in looking at what we have, I'm just not seeing it, which in my mind, puts this one outside of what I would prefer to see downtown. It's nice - but from what I'm seeing, that's about all it is.

If we get either Gateway or RCDP - I'll be doing a Snoopy dance!

 

Edited June 9, 2023 by I miss RVA

[ancientcarpenter]

On 6/9/2023 at 9:42 AM, I miss RVA said:

The good Dr. Slipek and I generally do NOT see eye-to-eye when it comes to Richmond development (I am basically his 180-degree polar opposite) - but on this piece in today's RBS, I find no fault with his position. He makes some good points - and I think the four groups vying for the City Center job do address some of them. I fully agree that it would be preferable to see people on sidewalks and not on catwalks - and frankly, we could just skip the underground tunnels altogether as far as I'm concerned. Tunnels are no better than catwalks - and he's spot on that people traffic on the street is what brings vitality.

@Flood Zone Would you care to share your selection of "one in particular"?  Asking just out of curiosity and for the sake of conversation. 

Personally - I find that all four offer something valuable to the concept of how to handle the Phase 1 redevelopment of City Center. Here's how I rank the four proposals from best to good but not the best:

1a.) City Center Gateway Partners -- the proposed 30-story hotel on 5th Street and adjacent 25-plus-story residential towers promise to be iconic on the RVA skyline.  The hotel is what gives this project (in my view) the narrowest of edge over my second choice (which is why I rank them not 1 & 2 but 1a and 1b - I'd be perfectly happy with either one.)

1b.) Richmond Community Development Partners -- I'd be 100% happy if this group got the nod as well. They bring tremendous focus on height, density and massing - and to some extent, even better than does Gateway. I LOVE the height and the iconic design for a tower at 7th and Clay. The two high-rise towers along Leigh Street also promise to be architecturally striking and could be signature buildings on the RVA skyline. And I love the massing and height of the hotel on 5th Street. In some ways, I actually prefer this to Gateway - but it's that GORGEOUS Gateway hotel and the two residential buildings that are what sell me on Gateway. Either way - this one is also a grand slam home run!

3.) Capstone Development -- solid emphasis on height and density and four really cool looking buildings with other outstanding features interwoven. This proposal is also a nice formula in a lot of ways, even if none of the taller buildings necessarily stands out as iconic in the ways that towers in both the CCGP and RCDP proposals do.

4.) Lincoln Property Company -- maybe it's a matter of needing more renderings - but I'm simply not seeing height and building massing in the LPC proposal that is there in the other three. Not saying this is an awful proposal - but of the four, this one hits me as "meh" - I don't see the "big city" component to it that I see in the other three (particularly Gateway and RCDP). This is the proposal that I see as "typical" for what Richmond tends to settle for - rather than thinking outside the box and going big and bold. MIND YOU - I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt that we don't necessarily have sufficient renderings to judge how height and massing is used - but in looking at what we have, I'm just not seeing it, which in my mind, puts this one outside of what I would prefer to see downtown. It's nice - but from what I'm seeing, that's about all it is.

If we get either Gateway or RCDP - I'll be doing a Snoopy dance!

 

I'm slightly confused: Is he saying an elevated skywalk would not be engaging with the city as people walk across it and "look down" on Richmonders...but then goes on to recommend a tunnel?

Skywalk and tunnel both take people away from the streets (and also implies the streets are for cars which is a different problem to discuss) and one is definitely not a good solution nor alternative for the other. 

[I miss RVA]

12 hours ago, ancientcarpenter said:

I'm slightly confused: Is he saying an elevated skywalk would not be engaging with the city as people walk across it and "look down" on Richmonders...but then goes on to recommend a tunnel?

Skywalk and tunnel both take people away from the streets (and also implies the streets are for cars which is a different problem to discuss) and one is definitely not a good solution nor alternative for the other. 

Exactly. His take really makes no sense - because his point of foot traffic on sidewalks IS a valid one - but his "solution" -- unless he's offering it tongue-in-cheek (which he might be doing) - simply moves people from 2 or 3 stories above the street to completely out of sight, out of mind, in little tunnels. Makes no sense at all.

I'm thinking he might be speaking hyperbolically and exaggerating things just a bit to make his point about foot traffic being what's needed for that part of downtown.