Monroe Tower

[eandslee]

Thought I’d start a new thread since this is getting a lot of attention.  Should the Monroe tower be kept (sold to a private developer)?  If so, what might that look like and what use(s) would it have?  Will we be able to keep the city’s tallest (449 feet) or should it be demolished?  There are a wide range of feelings and opinions on this. Let’s discuss those things here.  What will be the future of this, rather hideous (as most agree),  icon of the Richmond skyline?

[I miss RVA]

Almost no need for me to respond here because everyone knows I want the tower kept. Let's face it - 449 feet on the skyline is 449 feet on the skyline. I was looking at a picture of downtown earlier today -- trying to envision the skyline without its eastern anchor. I just can't envision it without significant pain. And I'm old enough to remember the downtown skyline well BEFORE the tower was built.

I have a feeling the state will keep the property and demo the building. Would be a miracle if they sell -- and as Ice noted earlier - if the state tears it down, because that parcel and surroundings is such an absolute MESS - the best we're likely to see is a nice, big, crunchy parking deck - one that matches the behemoth on the southeast corner of 14th and Franklin. So we lose 449 feet off the skyline - AND get an urban streetscape every bit as crappy as what's there now.

[blopp1234]

Don’t want to be a negative Nancy, I’d love to see a developer repurpose this tower, replace the parking pedestal with street front apartments and retail, and apartments in a newly reclad tower with a 62 foot spire making it the tallest in the state we’ve dreamed of, however I don’t know how feasible that is from a financial, political and architectural standpoint. The only uses I could see for this tower would be ultra high end apartments or high end commercial office space, both of which would require extensive renovation of the building (which we know will have to happen if it’s saved). Anything else would be challenging from a financial perspective due to the small floor plates, which limit the amount of units per floor, leading to higher prices. I also wonder if the massive concrete parts of the façade are structural, or if they could be replaced with a glass curtain. This would definitely help with selling units as the building offers great views of the downtown, Libby hill, Manchester, Shockoe and rocketts (which has been mentioned before).  Politically, not sure if the new administration, which will take the lead on this, will be more inclined to tear the building down and sell the lot, replace it with parking, or sell the building without tearing it down. A similarish example of our conundrum is the Seneca one tower in Buffalo, which has recently been rehabilitated with shops being add to the plaza surrounding the building, however, it may have been more financially feasible due to having larger floor plates (more commercial and residential space to lease). Anyway that’s just my 2sense.

[wrldcoupe4]

This building will never be high end office space.  Unless it can be converted to another use, it’s unfortunately obsolete for its original purpose. The land value is less than the improved value, so I suspect there is a buyer of the property, tower included, if the state is a willing seller. The parking deck may be the most valuable portion at this point. I’ve heard various rumors that the building sinks or leans, the building systems never worked well, that the footings for the 2nd tower can’t support a new one, etc. This one is really a conundrum. 

[I miss RVA]

28 minutes ago, blopp1234 said:

Don’t want to be a negative Nancy, I’d love to see a developer repurpose this tower, replace the parking pedestal with street front apartments and retail, and apartments in a newly reclad tower with a 62 foot spire making it the tallest in the state we’ve dreamed of, however I don’t know how feasible that is from a financial, political and architectural standpoint. The only uses I could see for this tower would be ultra high end apartments or high end commercial office space, both of which would require extensive renovation of the building (which we know will have to happen if it’s saved). Anything else would be challenging from a financial perspective due to the small floor plates, which limit the amount of units per floor, leading to higher prices. I also wonder if the massive concrete parts of the façade are structural, or if they could be replaced with a glass curtain. This would definitely help with selling units as the building offers great views of the downtown, Libby hill, Manchester, Shockoe and rocketts (which has been mentioned before).  Politically, not sure if the new administration, which will take the lead on this, will be more inclined to tear the building down and sell the lot, replace it with parking, or sell the building without tearing it down. A similarish example of our conundrum is the Seneca one tower in Buffalo, which has recently been rehabilitated with shops being add to the plaza surrounding the building, however, it may have been more financially feasible due to having larger floor plates (more commercial and residential space to lease). Anyway that’s just my 2sense.

I definitely would prefer the state sell to a developer with deep enough pockets to fully convert this into some kind of high-end residential tower. It would be the most unique residential building in RVA - the biggest selling point would be views. The higher up the better.

Now - regarding the concrete cladding on the corners - I don't think they're structural - as I believe it's a full, old-style steel-girder tower. Have a look at some pretty amazing pictures from when it was under construction:

 

 

 

Check out the original proposal for how it would have looked as a twin-tower complex.

Picture 1 - the original interation. I actually remember seeing this drawing in the RTD and the RNL.

Picture 2 - an alternate version in 1988. Notice how architecturally different the two towers are.

Picture 3 - another alternate version, also from 1988 - with the towers joined by an additional structure

Edited December 21, 2021 by I miss RVA

[Brent114]

I like the building and want it to stay.   It’s important for cities to have multiple building styles that span many decades.  Sunbelt cities are gross and with the demolition of our older high-rises we get closer to that flash in the pan look. 
 

I personally think it’s silly to keep demanding street level retail when…

1) retail is dead. Period

2) the Slip, the Bottom, Main Street, Broad Street and Grace Street all have nearly as many vacant storefronts as occupied storefronts.  

We need to move massive amounts of residents and workers (which will be difficult because office workers are increasingly obsolete too) into downtown to fill up some existing storefronts before adding more.    

I just spent the weekend in Washington.  Their storefronts (Georgetown, Adams Morgan, Woodly Park, Roslyn, Clarendon, DuPont Circle…) are empty too, even the new ones. 

The Monroe Building is just as worthy of renovation as the Pocahontas.  The state should sell the building at 7th and Main to a private developer and renovate the Monroe, regardless of the coast. 

Edited December 21, 2021 by Brent114

[ancientcarpenter]

2 hours ago, Brent114 said:

I like the building and want it to stay.   It’s important for cities to have multiple building styles that span many decades.  Sunbelt cities are gross and with the demolition of our older high-rises we get closer to that flash in the pan look. 
 

I personally think it’s silly to keep demanding street level retail when…

1) retail is dead. Period

2) the Slip, the Bottom, Main Street, Broad Street and Grace Street all have nearly as many vacant storefronts as occupied storefronts.  

We need to move massive amounts of residents and workers (which will be difficult because office workers are increasingly obsolete too) into downtown to fill up some existing storefronts before adding more.    

I just spent the weekend in Washington.  Their storefronts (Georgetown, Adams Morgan, Woodly Park, Roslyn, Clarendon, DuPont Circle…) are empty too, even the new ones. 

The Monroe Building is just as worthy of renovation as the Pocahontas.  The state should sell the building at 7th and Main to a private developer and renovate the Monroe, regardless of the coast. 

Retail can mean grocery, market, restaurants, etc. It doesn't necessarily mean JCPenney or Saks at the base.

These are the type of things that create movement and attract people to areas. If you just build a building (like Monroe Tower) where it's cool to look at (debatable, it's ugly) and nobody is in the area outside the M-F 8-5pm hours then you create a dead zone at most times. We need people living in Richmond city and doing things IN Richmond city.

 

On top of all of this, I'm not sure why people are so bent on keeping Monroe Tower. It is full of deadly chemicals and poisons. It is not a pretty building whatsoever. And it's outside its life and needs to go. Too expensive to remediate any of this. The ONLY argument I'm hearing for keeping Monroe Tower is that it's a tall building... This obsession with height is unhealthy. I'm starting to think that nobody here actually lives in the city area and just wants visual satisfaction when they drive by the city so they can feel like a big city. I'd chop down 10 Monroe Towers if it meant we actually had a vibrant city area (again). A city's success is not measured in height of buildings just like a country's economy is not measured in the stock market. 

 

I was recently in Boston and had a (Univ. of) Richmond sweatshirt on. A tour guide said "Man, I loved your city history but it is a ghost town!" I had to politely explain to  him that nobody actually goes downtown downtown to do things, it's all in the Arts district on certain days, Fan, Museum, and Scotts Addition areas. This guy got a hotel downtown to experience downtown RVA and he definitely experienced the ghost town that was downtown RVA. But, hey, at least the towers look pretty for him right? 

Edited December 21, 2021 by ancientcarpenter

[Brent114]

I think the Monroe IS a good-looking building.  I’m a fan of brutalism  

 

Not every part of every town needs to have life after 5pm.  Central business districts across the world are empty after work hours (downtown Manhattan versus Midtown/Village/Chelsea for example).  14th street doesn’t need a grocery store, and if it did it could go into the La Diff building which will be empty any day now. 
 

The reason why Carytown works is because Floyd, Elwood, Patterson, Hanover, Stuart, Kensington, Monument etc aren’t lined with shops too.   I’m sure there is a calculation to determine how any residents you need to support a single storefront.  I’m also sure that downtown Richmond (even though it’s ahead of most cities our size) doesn’t have nearly enough residents to support the existing retail spaces (the retail space at the James Center is 90% empty!) much less new spaces. 

[Icetera]

2 hours ago, Brent114 said:

I like the building and want it to stay.   It’s important for cities to have multiple building styles that span many decades.  Sunbelt cities are gross and with the demolition of our older high-rises we get closer to that flash in the pan look. 

This so much.  Currently, for every new skyscraper we build we are looking to tear down a current tower.  In doing so we are replacing mixed architecture with nothing but glass curtain.  Including CoStar, the past 5 out of 6 towers (Gateway, DE, VCU Health, VCU Childrens') have been a similar design style and the Block D development will add a 6th.  This is already a typical problem for cities during boom periods that we are only making worse.  One of my favorite aspects of Richmond has been the dense and diverse style of our skyline that is unseen in the newly developed Southern cities like Austin.
 

But if we really are this intent on clearing out the ugly towers, then I vote we remove the SunTrust tower after the dust settles from Monroe.  Unlike Monroe, where there is lots of room for play on the exterior renovations (the interior would have to be gutted regardless for residential conversion), the narrow windowed fortress of SunTrust's exterior leaves little room for improvement.  Why stop at two holes in the ground when we can turn the city into a mole's paradise, as at least that creates a niche market to fill empty store fronts.

[123fakestreet]

it's ugly but the height is great for the skyline, and if it gets demolished no way anyone is building anything nearly that tall in it's place.

[ancientcarpenter]

1 hour ago, Brent114 said:

I think the Monroe IS a good-looking building.  I’m a fan of brutalism  

 

Not every part of every town needs to have life after 5pm.  Central business districts across the world are empty after work hours (downtown Manhattan versus Midtown/Village/Chelsea for example).  

We aren't talking about NYC though. This is the capital of Virginia. A state that if it were it's own country would be a top 37 in GDP. NYC is an international city. Apples and oranges. 

The central part of the city should not be empty like this, especially as WFH becomes more and more obvious (even before pandemic). 

Edited December 21, 2021 by ancientcarpenter

[CitiWalker]

I am not sure why someone would be hell bent on destroying a tower instead of  repurposing it.  They re-skinned the City Hall and it looks more modern and  aesthetically pleasing. I  mean isn't that why we hire architects and engineers to figure out the best way to use space that already exist.  I know it won't be cheap to repurpose but, what would be the cost of demolishing the entire building and building one of equal height and volume in today's cost? On top of that why tear down a building of that size just to build something lesser. I could see that being a residential tower with some innovative amenities. You already have another podium/ parking deck. Use that space for a pool or maybe park with running trail built right on top. I  think too often people look at the what is vs the what could be. Personally I like the design. What makes the building unappealing is it is dirty looking. Probably a combination of being beside the highway with all the exhaust and just natural dirt build up. Cement castings can look worn because of that. I never knew that building to be sandblasted or power washed or what have you. The shape itself is not bad. Maybe a re-skin job would enhance the appearance. Internally the floors can be configured a lot of different ways. It has a steel skeleton  so the inside can definitely be worked with. Just because a building looks old does not mean it has no use. Just my two cents.

[Brent114]

The central part of the city isn’t empty though.  The Bottom, the Arts District and the lower Fan are a part  of the central city.  Monroe sits in the CBD.  It’s pure folly to think that a stand alone mixed use building will accomplish anything considering that interstate is immediately to the east, the Capital complex is immediately to the west, the hospital complex is immediately to the North and more state office building/parking structures are to the south. Even if a 40 floor condo building took its place, it would be better to funnel the foot traffic generated by it to Main Street. 

Edited December 21, 2021 by Brent114

[Icetera]

6 minutes ago, CitiWalker said:

What makes the building unappealing is it is dirty looking. Probably a combination of being beside the highway with all the exhaust and just natural dirt build up. Cement castings can look worn because of that. I never knew that building to be sandblasted or power washed or what have you.

The BoA building looked dingy too until they repainted it a few years back and the difference is significant.  I really do not think it would take much to make Monroe attractive.  The worst parts are the discolored corners, fixable with paint or a nice metal siding like City Hall, and the ugly brown windows, clearly replaceable.  Yes, the parking structure is an atrocious mess but most could be ripped out or at-least wrapped with street-level amenities.

[DowntownCoruscant]

Those are awesome photos, I Miss RVA.

Monroe’s highest and best use going forward is as a storage facility. Keep the height and presumably the structure could withstand the weight of a few boxes. Extra Space Storage could brand it Tons of Extra Space Storage.

[I miss RVA]

6 hours ago, ancientcarpenter said:

1.) We need people living in Richmond city and doing things IN Richmond city.

2.) I'm not sure why people are so bent on keeping Monroe Tower. It is full of deadly chemicals and poisons. It is not a pretty building whatsoever.

3.) And it's outside its life and needs to go.

4.) Too expensive to remediate any of this. The ONLY argument I'm hearing for keeping Monroe Tower is that it's a tall building...

5.) This obsession with height is unhealthy. 

6.) I'd chop down 10 Monroe Towers if it meant we actually had a vibrant city area (again).

7.) A city's success is not measured in height of buildings just like a country's economy is not measured in the stock market. 

 

Okay my friend - I honestly HATE butting heads with you - (mind you, I enjoy robust, healthy debate, obviously) - but I feel I have no choice here.

We're going to have to disagree on a bunch of points. I'm just going to respond to each one in order.

1.) People living in RVA city: Yes - we DO need people living in RVA city. And BIGGER residential buildings can house MORE people! Just sheer arithmetic. So if a developer converts Monroe Tower into a swanky apartment or condo building -- that's 29 floors worth of residential space. You mean to tell me that a four or five or eight-story apartment building on the same site will have as many people living on this property than a 29-story residential building will? That sounds like some real Harry Potter magic happening there - breaking through the space-time-continuum to be sure - and I'd LOVE to see how you pull off THAT trick.

As has been suggested here previously - the Monroe building has a VERY unique selling point that a sharp/clever development and real estate team could craftily market and turn into a super selling point that -- at least right now, NO other building in RVA has. VIEWS!!! And the higher up the tower you are, the better the views. That the tower is somewhat isolated gives it the same advantage from the standpoint of views that Lake Point Tower has in Chicago. That's been discussed here - no need to rehash those particulars. Properly rehabbed into a residential building, Monroe could be a VERY hot residential property because it can offer what no other building in RVA can. If we're willing to think even a couple of millimeters outside the box, then that's a HUGE selling point -- and ultimately a huge WIN for downtown RVA.

2a.) Deadly poisons/chems: I'm sure it does. But then again, so does just about EVERY old building that gets rehabbed in this city. Folks are clamoring for the old Supreme Court building (original Fed bulding) on Franklin Street to be saved because it's "historic" -- I guaran-damn-TEE you it's just as full of chemicals and poisons as the Monroe building is. I don't see anyone worried about that. Do you?

2b.) It's not pretty: Oh, I fully agree. I've never really liked the design. The windowless, concave, solid concrete corners have ALWAYS been very offputting to me -- and I watched the damn building go up back in (1979?) 1980-81. NONETHELESS - why is it not worthy of preservation? There are PLENTY of old, so-called "historic" two-story wood-frame row houses that are just flat-out ramshackle in some of RVA's older neighborhoods. They've sat abandoned and boarded up for years. They're ugly as sin and invite crime, not to mention unwanted four-legged populations. Yet over how many of those do we cry rivers of crocodile tears to save because they're supposedly "historic" ... give me a break with this one. It's all semantics and it's all opinion. My opinion is that the Monroe building is FAR more worthy of salvation than the entire lot of these ramshackle houses that are falling down on their own.

NOT ONLY THAT - just because the building isn't pretty now - doesn't mean a developer with VISION can't come in and do some pretty amazing things with it. IT REQUIRES THINKING OUTSIDE THE BOX -- and for WHATEVER reason, with the exception of how to creatively find ways to stop progress, THAT concept seems to be entirely lost on a large swath of the RVA citizenry. If it doesn't fit into the geodesic dome of a living history museum, then it doesn't - or shouldn't - exist. And THAT mindset, to me, is utterly disgusting.

3.) Outside its life and needs to go: See 2b regarding ramshackle old houses that are falling down around themselves over which preservationists soil their knickers while frothing at the mouth to save. Too bad preservationists didn't have that same sense of urgency in 1970 when Fulton Bottom -- the city's OLDEST established neighborhood that was, despite severe infrastructure decay and equally severe economic depression, home to a vibrant, important and vital RVA community -- essentially got bulldozed into the James lock, stock and barrel, by the RRHA.

4a.) Too expensive to remediate: Are we the taxpayers footing the bill for this if a private developer comes in and repurposes the Monroe tower? If so, then you may have a point. If not, then this is a non sequitur and makes absolutely no sense at all. If a private developer has the resources and desire to spend said resources converting this building, then what right have we to tell them they cannot do so? I get that you don't like the building. But a private developer -- particularly one WITH VISION who is capable of thinking OUTSIDE THE BOX/GEODESIC DOME -- might have far grander thoughts regarding the tower. Let's let THEM decide what to do, shall we? 

4b.) Only argument to save it is that it's tall: you're missing the point. The building is iconic. It's been an anchor on the skyline for 40 years. Just because it doesn't have pretty architecture or would be deemed "historic" by the stuffed shirt crowd doesn't mean it's not an RVA landmark. It very much IS an RVA landmark, whether or not we like how it looks.

HERE'S WHAT WE SHOULD DO: let's create a grass-roots citizens' push to get the Monroe Building added to the register of historic places. Why? Because it held the title of tallest building in Virginia. A very unique distinction to which only a small handful of buildings can stake a claim. Get this building "historic" protection. How is this building any less "historic" than the CNB building? (which for my entire life has been and still is my favorite RVA building of all time) -- just because CNB has either age or prettier architecture going for it? Can it not be argued that -- ugly or not -- the Monroe building is UNIQUE in its architecture in RVA? Isn't that one of the criteria for all of these historic designations?

That's what I think needs to happen - there needs to be a push to designate the Monroe tower as historic landmark. It's one of a kind - and it's an RVA icon - part of what makes the RVA skyline recognizable.

5.) Obsession with height is unhealthy: spoken like a true old-school RVA preservationist. I argue that the obsession with (in my opinion VERY draconian) historic preservation in this city is unhealthy. It's a wash. Next?

6.) Chop down 10 M"T's/vibrant city area again: OMG there is a book's worth of counterpoint regarding the "vibrant city" argument that could be made here. I'll try to be brief:

   A.) This two-block stretch of 14th street -- which has been turned into basically an urban-footprint DISASTER by the state and federal government -- isn't going to make or break downtown RVA becoming a vibrant area. Not when there are OCEANS of vacant lots and surface parking lots that cover HUGE swaths of downtown - Monroe Ward is essentially little islands of buildings floating on a Pacific Ocean-sized wasteland of parking lots. It's no better outside of Monroe Ward. There are parking lots stretching from Jackson Ward to the VCU Health complex, including much of what would become known as City Center. The City Center "project" site itself (Grace Street) is a parking lot. If you want a vibrant city, then start building up the city. And yes - SIZE MATTERS. Bigger IS better. If my urban planning profs at VCU in the early '80s said downtown RVA needs 30,000 residents living there - and right now we have maybe 8,000 -- then we've a LONG way to go and a LOT of work to do. Converting a 29-story building into residences will do FAR more to fix the lack-of-people problem than will trying to artificially create some kind of "streetscape" experience on a two-block stretch of 14th that flat out isn't physically set up for it.

   B.) That two block stretch of 14th street has been SO badly decimated from a streetscape standpoint by the Capital Complex to the west (big retaining walls on the west side of 14th), I-95 immediately to the east (plus the big circular onramp at 14th and Broad) - it's a no-man's land that basically sits in an artificial "trench" made out of the Cap complex, the interstate and the severe slopes of topography. IT SIMPLY ISN'T SET UP to become anything more than what it is - a pass through for traffic going north-south to/from Broad/Main. The stretch of 14th Street south from Main is FAR better suited to be reconstituted as a vibrant streetscape -and even that said, last time I checked, it hardly seems to be teaming with bustling activity, despite immediate proximity to the Canal, which by itself should be THE huge draw. Getting more residential development along the Canal will help - but we may just have to reconcile ourselves to the fact that 14th street may not be one of those streets that becomes the cluster of outdoor cafes, nice retail shops, swanky businesses we'd like to see. AND THAT'S OKAY! Not every street in the city has to look like Georgetown for the city to still be vibrant!

7.) City not measured by height of building: I'll counter that impressive skylines are part in parcel very consistent with how we gauge successful cities -- and moreover -- how we've come to identify specific cities. Iconic skylines differentiate between cities -- not all cities look the same, nor should they. The most basic identifier of which city is which -- is their skyline. Do you honestly mean to tell me you can't look at the skylines of New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, Seattle, San Francisco, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Atlanta, Charlotte, Miami, New Orleans -- among MANY MANY MANY others -- and not know RIGHT AWAY what city you're seeing?  It's every bit as important for RVA to have an iconic skyline  as it is for ANY of those other cities -- and YES, that means BIG, TALL buildings -- because that's how we measure & identify cities in this country. Why should RVA be left out of that conversation?

And PLEASE spare me the "...but RVA is unique. We don't need a skyline/we don't need to be like this city or that city, yada yada" BS. Yeah? I'm tired of that time-worn, old, utterly pointless trope. It's BS and every one of us on here knows that it is. We don't need to look like the little town on the opening/closing montage of Mr. Roger's Neighborhood, either. We don't need to be Charleston or Savannah. They're fine as they are. We don't need to join them.

Bottom line: I see absolutely NO reason for the Monroe Tower to be torn down unless whoever has ownership of the building and the property (be it the state or private entities) has specific plans for the property and the building doesn't fit into their plans. Period. Getting rid of the building to try to artificially create some kind of urban streetscape along this two-block stretch of 14th is a non-starter that's just plain and simply foolish.

 

 

Edited December 21, 2021 by I miss RVA

[upzoningisgood]

“So if a developer converts Monroe Tower into a swanky apartment or condo building -- that's 29 floors worth of residential space. You mean to tell me that a four or five or eight-story apartment building on the same site will have as many people living on this property than a 29-story residential building will? “

That’s actually a distinct possibility. The Monroe Building has a small footprint and its concrete corners eat into a lot of window space that you would need when converting to residential. If you had full lot coverage with an efficiently designed apartment building, it’s totally possible you would get more units than the Monroe Building. 

Also, it’s only 25 occupiable stories.

1 hour ago, I miss RVA said:

has been suggested here previously - the Monroe building has a VERY unique selling point that a sharp/clever development and real estate team could craftily market and turn into a super selling point that -- at least right now, NO other building in RVA has. VIEWS!!! And the higher up the tower you are, the better the views.

You’ll notice that modern residential towers have 360 degrees of glass, letting them maximize their number or units. When so much of the building is concrete, that’s going to cut into rentable space and limit the functionality of views.

1 hour ago, I miss RVA said:

why is it not worthy of preservation? There are PLENTY of old, so-called "historic" two-story wood-frame row houses that are just flat-out ramshackle in some of RVA's older neighborhoods. They've sat abandoned and boarded up for years. They're ugly as sin and invite crime, not to mention unwanted four-legged populations. Yet over how many of those do we cry rivers of crocodile tears to save because they're supposedly "historic" ... give me a break with this one. It's all semantics and it's all opinion. My opinion is that the Monroe building is FAR more worthy of salvation than the entire lot of these ramshackle houses that are falling down on their own.

The fact that we do too much historic preservation is not an argument that we should do more historic preservation.

1 hour ago, I miss RVA said:

4a.) Too expensive to remediate: Are we the taxpayers footing the bill for this if a private developer comes in and repurposes the Monroe tower? If so, then you may have a point. If not, then this is a non sequitur and makes absolutely no sense at all. If a private developer has the resources and desire to spend said resources converting this building, then what right have we to tell them they cannot do so? I get that you don't like the building. But a private developer -- particularly one WITH VISION who is capable of thinking OUTSIDE THE BOX/GEODESIC DOME -- might have far grander thoughts regarding the tower. Let's let THEM decide what to do, shall we? 

I think their point was that it would be too expensive for it to pencil out for a private developer. If that’s not what they meant, then you’re right.

 

1 hour ago, I miss RVA said:

That's what I think needs to happen - there needs to be a push to designate the Monroe tower as historic landmark. It's one of a kind - and it's an RVA icon - part of what makes the RVA skyline recognizable.

5.) Obsession with height is unhealthy: spoken like a true old-school RVA preservationist. I argue that the obsession with (in my opinion VERY draconian) historic preservation in this city is unhealthy. It's a wash.

You’re complaining (fairly) about pitiful buildings being saved only because they’re old, but you want to designate a literally toxic, ugly building as a historic landmark to prevent it getting torn down because it’s “iconic?” I know you mentioned it’s legacy as a former tallest building in VA, but the Monroe Building’s own Wikipedia page admits it’s location at a bottom of a hill makes it stand out.

 

1 hour ago, I miss RVA said:

Chop down 10 M"T's/vibrant city area again: OMG there is a book's worth of counterpoint regarding the "vibrant city" argument that could be made here. I'll try to be brief:

Parts A and B raise many fair points and also stands as a good rebuttal to some points I made in the Costar thread. It is totally possible that old 14th will never be that charming or immensely walkable. That does not mean we need to keep the current, non-charming building. There can be other, non-charming buildings that are better suited for housing people/businesses than this one, for reasons I’ve outline above.

 

1 hour ago, I miss RVA said:

City not measured by height of building: I'll counter that impressive skylines are part in parcel very consistent with how we gauge successful cities -- and moreover -- how we've come to identify specific cities. Iconic skylines differentiate between cities -- not all cities look the same, nor should they. The most basic identifier of which city is which -- is their skyline. Do you honestly mean to tell me you can't look at the skylines of New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, Seattle, San Francisco, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Atlanta, Charlotte, Miami, New Orleans -- among MANY MANY MANY others -- and not know RIGHT AWAY what city you're seeing?  It's every bit as important for RVA to have an iconic skyline (and YES, that means BIG, TALL buildings -- because that's how we measure & identify cities in this country) -- as it is for ANY of those other cities. Why should RVA be left out of that conversation?

The first paragraphs of this building’s Wikipedia page explain why this site will always underperform its height figure on the skyline front. If this was in the City Center area, this would carry more weight, I think.
 

tl,dr; I think the building has structural factors that make it a poor choice for multifamily redevelopment, and I don’t think it is sufficiently attractive, iconic, useful, or safe to be worth preserving on its merits. 

Edited December 21, 2021 by upzoningisgood

[eandslee]

So, I have a question - if the Monroe Tower were to come down...how would they do it?  I wouldn't believe they could implode it being so close to I-95, unless they diverted all traffic away from that area (mostly through traffic would have to take I-295).  Otherwise, I would have to believe they would have to dismantle it piece by piece.  Sounds like a very expensive process.  Your thoughts?  How might something like this have been done in the past with other building very close to major highways?

[Downtowner]

24 minutes ago, eandslee said:

So, I have a question - if the Monroe Tower were to come down...how would they do it?  I wouldn't believe they could implode it being so close to I-95, unless they diverted all traffic away from that area (mostly through traffic would have to take I-295).  Otherwise, I would have to believe they would have to dismantle it piece by piece.  Sounds like a very expensive process.  Your thoughts?  How might something like this have been done in the past with other building very close to major highways?

I have said this since the day they mentioned demo for the Monroe tower.  There is no good way to demo this. You take it down piece by piece and the amount and cost of labor is going to be through the roof. You implode it being right next to 95 if a bunch of chunks of debris fall on to 95 even if it’s closed and damage 95 your looking at a lot of fines being handed out to whoever implodes it if 95 gets damaged. As a matter of fact I think that’s where 95 starts to get elevated to go over the James River right where the Monroe tower is. Your looking at a lot of issues either way trying to take this sucker down. There’s literally  no good way to take this down.

[I miss RVA]

37 minutes ago, upzoningisgood said:

“So if a developer converts Monroe Tower into a swanky apartment or condo building -- that's 29 floors worth of residential space. You mean to tell me that a four or five or eight-story apartment building on the same site will have as many people living on this property than a 29-story residential building will? “

That’s actually a distinct possibility. The Monroe Building has a small footprint and its concrete corners eat into a lot of window space that you would need when converting to residential. If you had full lot coverage with an efficiently designed apartment building, it’s totally possible you would get more units than the Monroe Building. 

Also, it’s only 25 occupiable stories.

You’ll notice that modern residential towers have 360 degrees of glass, letting them maximize their number or units. When so much of the building is concrete, that’s going to cut into rentable space and limit the functionality of views.

The fact that we do too much historic preservation is not an argument that we should do more historic preservation.

I think their point was that it would be too expensive for it to pencil out for a private developer. If that’s not what they meant, then you’re right.

 

You’re complaining (fairly) about pitiful buildings being saved only because they’re old, but you want to designate a literally toxic, ugly building as a historic landmark to prevent it getting torn down because it’s “iconic?” I know you mentioned it’s legacy as a former tallest building in VA, but the Monroe Building’s own Wikipedia page admits it’s location at a bottom of a hill makes it stand out.

 

Parts A and B raise many fair points and also stands as a good rebuttal to some points I made in the Costar thread. It is totally possible that old 14th will never be that charming or immensely walkable. That does not mean we need to keep the current, non-charming building. There can be other, non-charming buildings that are better suited for housing people/businesses than this one, for reasons I’ve outline above.

 

The first paragraphs of this building’s Wikipedia page explain why this site will always underperform its height figure on the skyline front. If this was in the City Center area, this would carry more weight, I think.
 

tl,dr; I think the building has structural factors that make it a poor choice for multifamily redevelopment, and I don’t think it is sufficiently attractive, iconic, useful, or safe to be worth preserving on its merits. 

1a.) Number of units: sure, anything is possible. And the building would have to be large enough to do it. Utilizing the entire footprint of the property would help. Mind you - if you're not keeping the podium parking, then you're talking about building residential units DIRECTLY backing up to the interstate and the Franklin Street/15th Street offramp. Good luck renting out (or selling) units that back up to a retaining wall - or - to whir of traffic flying by just feet from the windows. The current tower sits high enough atop the deck that this isn't a problem.

Either way - I'm not saying it absolutely "can't" be done - but I'm saying it's not at all likely without putting something up something VERY large on that site. And will it be more cost-prohibitive to tear down something THAT big AND build something big as it would be to rehab? (Maybe it would be cheaper to tear down and build new than to rehab - I don't know about this industry and the associated costs - it just seems to me like a triple expenditure - purchase, demo, new buildout) I'm sure it would be cheaper to build something SMALLER -- which for whatever reason, so many folks on here seem to want.

1b.) 25 occupiable floors: okay - good to have an accurate floor count.

2.) 360 degrees glass/modern residential towers/unit maximization: fair point. That's something that a developer would have to address (Can the building be reclad? How would the concrete corners be addressed? That COULD be a make-or-break deal from a cost perspective, because there would have to be safety measures put in place probably just as stringent as if the building were going to be torn down).

3.) too much historic preservation/let's do more -- did you catch the tongue-in-cheek component to my suggestion? But there's also some truth to it - if we're going to save ramshackle houses, then why not this big fella?

4.) too expensive - I think we're okay on that. No disagreement with you.

5a.) saving it because it's iconic on the skyline: Yes - the building is iconic as the eastern-most anchor on the skyline. How is it not?

5b.) Wikipedia page/building standing out due to location: Thanks - you made my argument for me. 

6a.) Other non-charming that could be converted: Okay - name one... go ahead - take your time...  Oh - and specifically the same size as the Monroe Tower. Go ahead - have at it - I've got time.

6b.) Doesn't mean we need to keep the current non-charming building: It also doesn't mean we need to tear it down, either.  That's a wash. Next?

7.) Site (14th street) will always underperform on skyline: Okay ... and?  Idk - seems like that building has stood out just fine for the past 40 years. Kinda hard to miss it on many approaches to downtown.

7b.) City Center performs better: ANYTHING built in city center of similar size to anything built closer to the riverfront will appear much taller, even if they're architecturally the exact same height. I'm ALL FOR building up City Center. In fact, if we got several boatloads of SERIOUS height in City Center and Monroe Ward, I'd be much less clingy to the Monroe Building. Re: City Center - my fear is that it will end up being UNDERBUILT. I'm working on some thoughts that I'll post over in the City Center thread soon (complete with pictures).

Nonetheless: this is not a justification to tear down the Monroe building.

8a.) Structural factors/unfavorable for redevelopment: Very fair point -and I have no disagreement. Those factors (just the concave concrete corners alone) could easily be a make-or-break deal for a developer.

8b.) Building not worth preserving on its own merits: That's your opinion. We'll have to agree to disagree there, which is 100% okay!

So far, I've not seen anything in your argument that justify proactively tearing down the building. I DO see good points in your arguments as to why the building may be very difficult to renovate/convert to residential.

Again - I stand by my conclusion: the ONLY reason the Monroe Building should be demolished is that the owner of the property/building (be it the state or private interests) has plans for the property and the building doesn't fit into those plans. If that's the case, then it is what it is.  It's no different than someone buying a house and the property includes a large garage. They have different ideas for how to develop their property and the garage doesn't fit those plans. Down it goes! But that is the ONLY justification I can find to support for tearing the building down. (Unless the building were SO structurally unsound that it became a legit public safety hazard - which I don't believe is the case -- it's not going to topple over onto I-95 anytime soon or start dropping concrete chunks onto cars or peoples' heads).

30 minutes ago, Downtowner said:

I have said this since the day they mentioned demo for the Monroe tower.  There is no good way to demo this. You take it down piece by piece and the amount and cost of labor is going to be through the roof. You implode it being right next to 95 if a bunch of chunks of debris fall on to 95 even if it’s closed and damage 95 your looking at a lot of fines being handed out to whoever implodes it if 95 gets damaged. As a matter of fact I think that’s where 95 starts to get elevated to go over the James River right where the Monroe tower is. Your looking at a lot of issues either way trying to take this sucker down. There’s literally  no good way to take this down.

This factors into my cost question. What developer is going to buy the property, spend what will have to be a king's fortune to try to take it down without significant damage to I-95, etc.) and THEN build something new there? Not gonna happen.

I'm increasingly of the opinion that the state likely won't sell - and they'll figure out how to demo the building themselves. I don't see a private developer committing THAT much money to it.

This point alone says to me that IF a developer buys it, they'll by with an idea toward doing something with the building, not demoing it. It also makes me question the state NOT selling - because of how ungodly expensive it will be to take this behemoth down -- particularly when they could make $28M on the sale and not have to spend a dime either rehabbing or ripping down the tower.

[upzoningisgood]

14 minutes ago, I miss RVA said:

Again - I stand by my conclusion: the ONLY reason the Monroe Building should be demolished is that the owner of the property/building (be it the state or private interests) has plans for the property and the building doesn't fit into those plans. If that's the case, then it is what it is.  It's no different than someone buying a house and the property includes a large garage. They have different ideas for how to develop their property and the garage doesn't fit those plans. Down it goes! But that is the ONLY justification I can find to support for tearing the building down.

This is my only justification for tearing it down. I’m just providing reasons why it won’t fit a developers plans, and why design externalities aren’t a good enough reason to keep the building up of it doesn’t make economic sense. 

[I miss RVA]

1 minute ago, upzoningisgood said:

This is my only justification for tearing it down. I’m just providing reasons why it won’t fit a developers plans, and why design externalities aren’t a good enough reason to keep the building up of it doesn’t make economic sense. 

Then we're in agreement re: justification to take the building down (it not fitting into a developer's plans). Our only disagreement is - you say it "won't" fit into a developer's plans. I'm not willing to go ALL THE WAY to "won't". I'll concede on "may not".  Because we just don't know. I know for sure, I don't -- but then again, I'm not in the commercial real estate business.

That said - the state may well be hard-pressed to sell it - and they'll probably take the building down (at taxpayer expense, of course). Ice said it right - if the state demos the building, then another nice large crunchy parking deck will go up in its place - very similar to the one on the southeast corner of 14th and Franklin.

[CitiWalker]

I am no demolition expert by any means but curious....How much would it realistically cost to take that building down piece  by piece or do an implosion. It seems to me to be very expensive and could be time consuming and hard to logistically plan if imploding.  At that price...28 million (if that is the real asking price) it would be a steal ....My prediction is that building ain't going nowhere. People would be up in arms over spending  x amount of dollars to tear down a building that is only 40 years old. I am not attacking anyone but to me from a common sense perspective...It's just a dumb idea.

[KJHburg]

what is the size of the floors in the James Monroe Tower?  often times in  office to residential conversions the floorplates are too big but someone mentioned they are smaller which would yield fewer units per floor. actually that is a better situation.  In terms of the HVAC and mechanicals they would be taken care of in a complete renovation.   Is there really structurally issues or is this rumor?  Can they be fixed?  that multimillion dollar condo tower in San Fran that is leaning and sinking is being fixed or at least attempted.  (Millennium Tower) 

Here is a radical idea:  give the or major discount the tower to a nonprofit for affordable housing mixed in with market rate and office space on the lower floors for nonprofits.  

What is the total square footage of the building and where would all those state agencies go or are they already gone? 

sounds like some ADA compliance issues and HVAC issues but still cant believe it cant be renovated but should be saved. 

State-owned Monroe, Supreme Court buildings to be replaced with new ones - Richmond BizSense

Edited December 21, 2021 by KJHburg

[Downtowner]

7 minutes ago, CitiWalker said:

I am no demolition expert by any means but curious....How much would it realistically cost to take that building down piece  by piece or do an implosion. It seems to me to be very expensive and could be time consuming and hard to logistically plan if imploding.  At that price...28 million (if that is the real asking price) it would be a steal ....My prediction is that building ain't going nowhere. People would be up in arms over spending  x amount of dollars to tear down a building that is only 40 years old. I am not attacking anyone but to me from a common sense perspective...It's just a dumb idea.

Yeah I feel like either way there will be a lot of push back from people and groups to tear it down based on its location and the cost of demo for it. I’m just not sure there’s a very good idea on this front. Whoever decided to put the Monroe tower up against 95 didn’t think about that one down the road. Wonder if there was room to position the tower a different way or to move it further from the interstate on the property when being planned and built?