Richmond off-topic postings

[Shakman]

I have no conflict that day.

[Icetera]

On 1/27/2023 at 7:54 PM, eandslee said:

Saturday, 22 April 2023

Tentatively added to my calendar

[Hike]

On 1/27/2023 at 7:54 PM, eandslee said:

So, the date I’m throwing out there is:

Saturday, 22 April 2023

I hope to make this, have it penciled in.

[Hike]

I wonder if someone like Ed Slipek  would be interested in a commentary on the future of the Monroe building, what are the merits of saving it, should it just go or is it worth saving? 

Edited January 31 by Hike

[I miss RVA]

18 hours ago, Hike said:

I wonder if someone like Ed Slipek  would be interested in a commentary on the future of the Monroe building, what are the merits of saving it, should it just go or is it worth saving? 

 - Idk. Much as I honestly do like Dr. S. and respect his tremendous knowledge and ability to give over the story of various neighborhoods, the history of a given locale, I just don't know about this one. He's a great writer - and I've had the privilege to hear him speak back in the day. I'd LOVE to attend his classes at VCU. And I preface what I'm about to say with the stone cold fact that I have a TON - and I do mean a TON - of respect for the man.

THAT SAID: I don't know how I feel about him writing about the Monroe tower - for a variety of reasons. First and foremost -- he's a 100%, died-in-the-wool, over-the-top, UBER-preservationists - and anyone on here who wants to argue counter to that needs to wake up and smell the cow pies and go back and read through mountains of what he's written over the years. Has he toned it back in recent years? Yes - he's not QUITE as obsessive about it today as he was decades ago when he was the architecture critic at large for Style Weekly and was really promulgating a certain gospel regarding preservation in Richmond that I cannot abide by and will never - EVER - agree with. I doubt his positions have changed much - but he has come to temper his enthusiasm just a bit and appears to have become slightly more accepting of progress in Richmond, even seaming to embrace it to a very small degree.

I FEAR he would be ALL-IN to demo the Monroe building and replace it either with a park/green space, etc. - or to recreate two/three-story "historic" architecture that went hasta la bye bye long before the Monroe tower was a twinkle in some architect's eye. I-95's construction and the reconfiguring of 14th Street pretty much sent any/all buildings along the location of the Monroe building to the old wrecking-ball graveyard. And somehow - I just don't see Dr. Slipek advocating for keeping a truly ICONIC structure like the Monroe tower (regardless of how ugly it might be) because of its location as an anchor on the eastern edge of the skyline and its height - one of only a couple of legitimately "tall" buildings in Richmond that meets international criteria to be called a "skyscraper".  And the ham-handed preservationist argument of "Monroe doesn't need to be saved just because it's 'old' (in relative terms) because the architecture is ugly" just blows my mind when the same folks will turn around and advocate that a one-story building in the middle of a city block that is -- yes -- quite a bit older than the Monroe building but has absolutely ZERO distinguishing architectural features - somehow is worthy of preservation - just BLOWS MY MIND. And it's the exact kind of argument I can hear him using.

FLIP SIDE: His piece last week about how awesome the Silver Line to Dulles is really irked me - because if something like that were proposed to come to pass in Richmond, at least in years/decades gone by, there was at least a better-than-equal chance he would have opposed it because it was too "big city" for a place like Richmond. And I have been 100% convinced for as long as he has been publicly active and on the scene here that he is one of those diehards who are all-in on keeping Richmond as small as possible and NOT letting her grow AT ALL if there was a way to actually do it.

What's the adage? "A Tiger doesn't change its stripes."

That said - I have VERY mixed feelings about him writing anything about the Monroe building. My gut tells me - HELL NO! And I think I'm going to go with my gut on this one.

Edited January 31 by I miss RVA

[Hike]

5 hours ago, I miss RVA said:

 - Idk. Much as I honestly do like Dr. S. and respect his tremendous knowledge and ability to give over the story of various neighborhoods, the history of a given locale, I just don't know about this one. He's a great writer - and I've had the privilege to hear him speak back in the day. I'd LOVE to attend his classes at VCU. And I preface what I'm about to say with the stone cold fact that I have a TON - and I do mean a TON - of respect for the man.

THAT SAID: I don't know how I feel about him writing about the Monroe tower - for a variety of reasons. First and foremost -- he's a 100%, died-in-the-wool, over-the-top, UBER-preservationists - and anyone on here who wants to argue counter to that needs to wake up and smell the cow pies and go back and read through mountains of what he's written over the years. Has he toned it back in recent years? Yes - he's not QUITE as obsessive about it today as he was decades ago when he was the architecture critic at large for Style Weekly and was really promulgating a certain gospel regarding preservation in Richmond that I cannot abide by and will never - EVER agree with. I doubt his positions have changed much - but he has come to temper his enthusiasm just a bit and appears to have become slightly more accepting of progress in Richmond, even seaming to embrace it to a very small degree.

I FEAR he would be ALL-IN to demo the Monroe building and replace it either with a park/green space, etc. - or to recreate two/three-story "historic" architecture that went hasta la bye bye long before the Monroe tower was a twinkle in some architect's eye. I-95's construction and the reconfiguring of 14th Street pretty much sent any/all buildings along the location of the Monroe building to the old wrecking-ball graveyard. And somehow - I just don't see Dr. Slipek advocating for keeping a truly ICONIC structure like the Monroe tower (regardless of how ugly it might be) because of its location as an anchor on the eastern edge of the skyline and its height - one of only a couple of legitimately "tall" buildings in Richmond that meets international criteria to be called a "skyscraper".  And the ham-handed preservationist argument of "Monroe doesn't need to be saved just because it's 'old' (in relative terms) because the architecture is ugly" just blows my mind when the same folks will turn around and advocate for a one-story building in the middle of a city block that is -- yes -- quite a bit older than the Monroe building but has absolutely ZERO distinguishing architectural features - somehow is worthy or preservation - just BLOWS MY MIND. And it's the exact kind of argument I can hear him using.

FLIP SIDE: His piece last week about how awesome the Silver Line to Dulles is really irked me - because if something like that were proposed to come to pass in Richmond, at least in years/decades gone by, there was at least a better-than-equal chance he would have opposed it because it was too "big city" for a place like Richmond.

What's the adage? "A Tiger doesn't change its stripes."

That said - I have VERY mixed feelings about him writing anything about the Monroe building. My gut tells me - HELL NO! And I think I'm going to go with my gut on this one.

That’s what I’m trying to gauge, is this something worth keeping or should it be torn down? I’m thinking about an impartial look at both cases and that may not be possible with E.S.
I’m on the fence with how I feel about this project. On one hand, that’s been the signature tower, is part of every skyline picture and view, on the other hand, it’s old and needs an influx of $, updates, it sits alone over there. Where are we if it comes down and another 12 story apartment takes its place. It’s on a bit of an island over there, nested between interstate, 6 lanes of internal roads, a train station, what can be done? These are questions that I’d like to see explored by someone, if there’s someone impartial that could consider both, that was my interest, maybe it’s just this board. 

[wrldcoupe4]

All the body language says the state wants to take it down. I’ve never been in it but have heard it’s a horrible building and has been for the longest time. As in the buildings guts as well as the built environment. Maybe they’ll try to sell it first and then if no buyer knock it down.  It’s literally right next to I-95 so I can’t even imagine what goes into that.

funny how one of the articles said the administration wants to transform the skyline and by that seems like they mean tear it down. So we potentially are going from two new buildings and keeping an old one to 1 near building and tearing down an old 1 

[Flood Zone]

I'd be interested to read Slipek's perspective.

At any rate, the writing is on the wall that the building is less than worthless in the real world. I'll be sad if it goes down but only for nostalgic/"feels" type of reasons -- you can see it from the very end of Monument Ave., it brings an impressive* look up close on I-95, it was the state's tallest for over three decades, etc. - but the thing is blight, especially to those who actually work there (not me, but I know quite a few), and my understanding that the cost of improving it from blight-status is so prohibitive that it's not worth trying.

 

* I mean, "impressive" is kind of a relative description here. I've driven this stretch many times with people who aren't from RVA, and no one has ever really commented on it in my presence, except I've heard a few times that it's ugly. Not that my experience is necessarily indicative or a good sample of anything. Just saying.

Edited January 31 by Flood Zone

[Brent114]

I really like that building.  IMO is the most “real city” building we have.  The scale is on another level for Richmond.  I’m a fan of brutalism so the aesthetics never bothered me. 
 

There will be a huge hole when it’s gone and that end of the downtown skyline will shrink visually (will shrink beyond the single building being gone, it will make everything around it seem smaller too). Bookend buildings  have a way of  making the stuff between them look beefier and grounded.  The Charlotte skyline, for example, immediately looked so much bigger and balance when the Duke Energy tower was built.  It looked much smaller when everything appeared to be centered around BOA.   It’s hard to articulate but visually the smaller buildings out from BOA just sorta disappeared.  Building the Duke building at what was at the time the edge of downtown really made everything between the two landmarks pop. 

[Hike]

I like the brutalist style too and I’m also concerned about losing this bookend high rise and the drop off in height as you describe.  In a perfect world, the right developer would see the potential and convert it to apartments, but my gut tells me it will be torn down. To keep it, whoever ends up with it, they would have to see the value in it for reasons beyond just turning land into apartments. If they are that type, see the value,  and consider all the existing steel, concrete cladding, concrete floor plates, (which are very expensive to recreate) they could all be saved and reused and have the potential to become something else. The easier thing to do is to tear it down and drop in the prefab 500 apartment box with YinYang rectangles, add parking and sell it by saying, “look, the train, the access” and done, rent please. 

Edited January 31 by Hike

[Icetera]

1 hour ago, Brent114 said:

I really like that building.  IMO is the most “real city” building we have.  The scale is on another level for Richmond.  I’m a fan of brutalism so the aesthetics never bothered me. 
 

There will be a huge hole when it’s gone and that end of the downtown skyline will shrink visually (will shrink beyond the single building being gone, it will make everything around it seem smaller too). Bookend buildings  have a way of  making the stuff between them look beefier and grounded.  The Charlotte skyline, for example, immediately looked so much bigger and balance when the Duke Energy tower was built.  It looked much smaller when everything appeared to be centered around BOA.   It’s hard to articulate but visually the smaller buildings out from BOA just sorta disappeared.  Building the Duke building at what was at the time the edge of downtown really made everything between the two landmarks pop. 

11 minutes ago, Hike said:

I like the brutalist style too and I’m also concerned about losing this bookend high rise and the drop off in height as you describe.  In a perfect world, the right developer would see the potential and convert it to apartments, but my gut tells me it will be torn down. To keep it, whoever ends up with it, they would have to see the value in it for reasons beyond just turning land into apartments. If they are that type, see the value,  and consider all the existing steel, concrete cladding, concrete floor plates, (which are very expensive to recreate) they could all be saved and reused and have the potential to become something else. The easier thing to do is to tear it down and drop in the prefab 500 apartment box with YinYang rectangles, add parking and sell it by saying, “look, the train, the access” and done, rent please. 

I  may not be the biggest fan of the tower as it looks now, but I agree with all of this.  For any renovation, the innards would have to be gutted regardless.  With some cladding and improved windows, perhaps even rework the non-structurally significant corners, this could be an absolute beauty containing the tallest residential units in the state (VA Beach Westin is only architecturally taller).

[Hike]

6 minutes ago, Icetera said:

I  may not be the biggest fan of the tower as it looks now, but I agree with all of this.  For any renovation, the innards would have to be gutted regardless.  With some cladding and improved windows, perhaps even rework the non-structurally significant corners, this could be an absolute beauty containing the tallest residential units in the state (VA Beach Westin is only architecturally taller).

I can’t help but remember how city hall, with the new aluminum cladding, was turned from an embarrassing, marble chunk dropping dump to what it is today, a much, much better building, Monroe can do it too. 

Edited January 31 by Hike

[I miss RVA]

3 hours ago, Brent114 said:

I really like that building.  IMO is the most “real city” building we have.  The scale is on another level for Richmond.  I’m a fan of brutalism so the aesthetics never bothered me. 
 

There will be a huge hole when it’s gone and that end of the downtown skyline will shrink visually (will shrink beyond the single building being gone, it will make everything around it seem smaller too). Bookend buildings  have a way of  making the stuff between them look beefier and grounded.  The Charlotte skyline, for example, immediately looked so much bigger and balance when the Duke Energy tower was built.  It looked much smaller when everything appeared to be centered around BOA.   It’s hard to articulate but visually the smaller buildings out from BOA just sorta disappeared.  Building the Duke building at what was at the time the edge of downtown really made everything between the two landmarks pop. 

 

1 hour ago, Icetera said:

I  may not be the biggest fan of the tower as it looks now, but I agree with all of this.  For any renovation, the innards would have to be gutted regardless.  With some cladding and improved windows, perhaps even rework the non-structurally significant corners, this could be an absolute beauty containing the tallest residential units in the state (VA Beach Westin is only architecturally taller).

 

1 hour ago, Hike said:

I can’t help but remember how city hall, with the new aluminum cladding, was turned from an embarrassing, marble chunk dropping dump to what it is today, a much, much better building, Monroe can do it too. 

    I agree wholeheartedly with ALL of the above ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 

Y'all know where I stand on this. I want to keep and renovate/reimagine/repurpose the tower AT ALL COSTS. It is a MUST keep, regardless what it takes. I'm praying like you wouldn't believe that an UBER deep-pocketed-developer will swoop in and make the Commonweath a real sweetheart deal, buy the building and then transform it into something DAZZLING. 

The building is ICONIC and is one of the DEFINING components of Richmond's skyline. It's part of what makes RVA's skyline identifiable. Perhaps it could be repurposed as residential, or truly mixed-use. Perhaps a portion could include an upscale hotel. Imagine what could be done if the building was re-clad, al-la City Hall. Perhaps a new top could be added that would actually INCREASE the building's height - as in architecturally integrated into the structure of the tower - something like a pointed top with a spire - or a wedding cake top. Imagine a restaurant at the top of the tower - or an observation deck (OR BOTH!!) The possibilities are ENDLESS.

But it will take some uber-rich developers to come in here from out of state and make it happen. And it will require the state government to be willing to part with the building and the property and not just be a retentive stick in the mud and decide - "no, we'd rather hold on to the land and jettison the building, no matter what someone offers us for it."  I can honestly see the state being THAT myopically stupid so as to cut off their nose to spite their face and turn away the opportunity to make a tidy profit on the land.

Dunno... I'm trying to hold out hope. The thought of losing the building's height and iconic presence on the skyline is soul crushing to me.

Edited January 31 by I miss RVA

[wrldcoupe4]

I guess CoStar will have the tallest in the city after all.... playing chess on us.

[I miss RVA]

5 minutes ago, wrldcoupe4 said:

I guess CoStar will have the tallest in the city after all.... playing chess on us.

Unfortunately.   (And they wouldn't even have to convert it to "CoStar feet"... )

[plain]

There's no point in taking down the Monroe Building if they're not going to build something TALLER and more visually appealing in its place. Plus, it is literally the only skyscraper I can think of in the entire nation that touches an interstate. Just one of the many things that gives Richmond its super urban appeal, something that you will be hard pressed to find anywhere else (especially to the south).

[Shakman]

Don't forget the foundation and podium of Monroe Tower is built to be able to support a second tower.  Renovate the existing tower and build the second tower with a different facade.  

[I miss RVA]

1 hour ago, plain said:

There's no point in taking down the Monroe Building if they're not going to build something TALLER and more visually appealing in its place. Plus, it is literally the only skyscraper I can think of in the entire nation that touches an interstate. Just one of the many things that gives Richmond its super urban appeal, something that you will be hard pressed to find anywhere else (especially to the south).

AMEN!!! 

[wrldcoupe4]

The state doesn’t care about any of these things. 

[I miss RVA]

4 hours ago, wrldcoupe4 said:

The state doesn’t care about any of these things. 

Oh absolutely. It's all bottom line and line items in a budget to the state. Nothing more, nothing less. I'd like to see some serious lobbying, though, aimed at convincing the powers that be to sell the building and parcel. It would be a win-win in-as-much as they could offload a property and no longer have ANY maintenance costs attached to keeping it, they wouldn't be out the cost of demolition, AND they'd MAKE money on the building and land. What scares me is that the land is probably more valuable at this point than the building. Wonder if they could work out a deal with a developer to part with the building but keep the land (I totally see the state wanting to hang on to the terra firma).

Bigger speedbump is locating a developer (or developers) with uber-deep pockets (and likely from out-of-state) who would want to pony up what the state would ask for the building - AND - who would want to redevelop the property. 

Edited February 1 by I miss RVA

[plain]

6 hours ago, wrldcoupe4 said:

The state doesn’t care about any of these things. 

 

Yes this is an unfortunate fact.

 

However, they definitely should care. This is a building that the state proposed, built, and maintained with the knowledge of it being one of the tallest buildings in the state (and it wound up being the tallest for over 25 years), plus the original proposal was for a twin. And this is in the city that is literally their headquarters, the state capital.

 

They should at least attempt to sell before they demolish.

[wrldcoupe4]

The way the state does things they’ll probably scrape it, not sell it, and replace it with a parking deck. 

[eandslee]

1 minute ago, wrldcoupe4 said:

The way the state does things they’ll probably scrape it, not sell it, and replace it with a parking deck. 

Where is my angry face option?

[I miss RVA]

17 minutes ago, eandslee said:

Where is my angry face option?

Here ya go.

If you want a bigger sized version, lmk and I'll send it to you in private chat. 

Edited February 2 by I miss RVA

[Brent114]

Just wanted to share an interesting  observation….

Early this morning (3:40 am) I noticed that a full crew was working on the new building across from the  Caravati’s  site in Manchester.  My living room was extra bright when I got up to urinate, so I looked out the blinds to see why.   They were pumping concrete.  I’m familiar with the practice of pouring concrete in the middle of the night when the daytime temperatures are going to be too high for it to set properly.  I’ve never seen round-the-clock work on an apartment development in Richmond before.  I take it as a sign of how strong the market is at the moment (are there not enough pump trucks? Not enough concrete finishers to do this during normal hours?).   Work continues to happen on Saturdays and some Sundays around Manchester too.