Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

willy

Indigo Dunes

89 posts in this topic

Developer has big plan near Bay at Beach

The project calls for

300 apartments, 121 detached homes, 528 condominiums and 147 town houses. The homes would feature balconies, dormers and gables in pastels and earth tones. They would range in size from about 1,000 to 4,000 square feet.

The tallest buildings would be twin 11-story condo high-rises. A small retail area designed to serve residents of the complex is included.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Developer has big plan near Bay at Beach

The project calls for

300 apartments, 121 detached homes, 528 condominiums and 147 town houses. The homes would feature balconies, dormers and gables in pastels and earth tones. They would range in size from about 1,000 to 4,000 square feet.

The tallest buildings would be twin 11-story condo high-rises. A small retail area designed to serve residents of the complex is included.

Over 1000 homes. This is worse than Tseng's 700 home proposal. The City should've bought this site years ago from McCleskey when the land was cheap. It's pretty bad when Norfolk officials say that they don't want to turn Ocean View into another Shore Drive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Over 1000 homes. This is worse than Tseng's 700 home proposal. The City should've bought this site years ago from McCleskey when the land was cheap. It's pretty bad when Norfolk officials say that they don't want to turn Ocean View into another Shore Drive.

1000 homes is quite excessive. Despite the 11-story condo towers this project sounds very suburban in nature.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, the 1096 homes are quite excessive. They should reduce the number of homes, since that would pressure the city to widen Shore Drive to 6 lanes, and renovate Lesner Bridge. Plus, the environmental pitfalls would be polluting the Pleasure House Creek, Lynnhaven River and ultimately, the Bay itself.

But taken in account for 846 homes in the former Wedgewood property, the city is beginning to build up, not out. Traffic will be worse unless the city OK's the plan to build light rail to Town Center and ultimately the Oceanfront.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great to hear this. Too much density can be a bad thing especially for roads and schools.

I can't agree wholly with that statement, even though it could more accurately apply to growth in general. Sprawl (opposite of density) is usually even more costly than density in terms of services and infrastructure. This is a lesson VB has learned pretty much the hard way.

The question pertains specifically to the growth along the Shore Drive corridor, and I'm not sure what the best answer is. I do know that the market for housing there is huge; it's one of only a handful of places in South Hampton Roads where almost anyone would like to live. But traffic is a concern. And that location is pretty far from real urban centers and from likely light rail service. Even today, buses only run hourly. But people love the view and the atmosphere of that area. It's only a matter of time before pockets of Chick's Beach feel some real developmental pressure.

Nevertheless, I think that another 1,500 units or so could be absorbed there, especially if they are phased in. Citizens are almost always going to say that they don't want more housing in their neighborhood, wherever it is. Yes, more high rises at Town Center might be better conceptually, but that market would be a different one, and the growing pains would be just as pressing, and maybe more so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't agree wholly with that statement, even though it could more accurately apply to growth in general. Sprawl (opposite of density) is usually even more costly than density in terms of services and infrastructure. This is a lesson VB has learned pretty much the hard way.

The question pertains specifically to the growth along the Shore Drive corridor, and I'm not sure what the best answer is. I do know that the market for housing there is huge; it's one of only a handful of places in South Hampton Roads where almost anyone would like to live. But traffic is a concern. And that location is pretty far from real urban centers and from likely light rail service. Even today, buses only run hourly. But people love the view and the atmosphere of that area. It's only a matter of time before pockets of Chick's Beach feel some real developmental pressure.

Nevertheless, I think that another 1,500 units or so could be absorbed there, especially if they are phased in. Citizens are almost always going to say that they don't want more housing in their neighborhood, wherever it is. Yes, more high rises at Town Center might be better conceptually, but that market would be a different one, and the growing pains would be just as pressing, and maybe more so.

1500 units mean a 6-lane Shore Drive. That is what is standing in the way. If Shore Dr was 6 lanes, then all these developments would get approved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bayfront Boom

At the 10-year build out, Indigo Dunes could potentially be worth $1 billion, according to Christine Pasterczyk, the project coordinator. She said the company doesn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


This is a great project for that area. I have a freind who lived in Ocean Park a year ago. The land is mosquito infested and also a dumping ground. This is called progress.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After seeing the designs I'm starting to come around on this a bit. I still think 1096 is way excessive and could stand to be chopped down a bit. That being said, $1 billion worth of development in one project is nothing to sneeze at.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I personally find it extremely annoying that the Shore Drive residents are always complaining about it being widened to 6 lanes. A lot of main roads are six lanes and are done nicely (Hampton Blvd & Granby Street are good and in some places bad examples). They have too much time and $$ on their hands up there bc they are always complaining how unsafe it is and how badly they want a NEW 4 lane bridge and how they want the atmosphere to stay the same and blah blah blah. Shore Drive is a vital East/West route for the north of the city and the only one north of VB BLVD. It should be AT LEAST 6 lanes. Nuff said about that.

About this project, it looks very nice and classy. And keep in mind that it will be built over TEN YEARS not ten months. I think that the area can handle the influx over time. Maybe they could build one 22 story tower and leave the open space for a park :) just my opinion...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've watched this corridor get destroyed by over-building. The solution is not widening the road or allowing more construction, but a moratorium on any new construction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The justification to go to 6 lanes will loom regardless of the status of Indigo dunes, which will probably load far more traffic westward on Northhampton Blvd. than eastward to Shore Dr. and Great Neck. The biggest problem will be getting to and from I-64, which is the real lifeline. Shore Drive will need to slow down somewhat, whether there are 4 or 6 lanes. It serves neighborhoods and also carries many through trips, and the number of through trips will increase over time. I personally don't care if there are six lanes, as long as the road has adequate trails, sidewalks and safety features. But many have a strong commitment to keep it at four lanes.

If growth is curbed in the northern part of the city, it almost certainly must march southward. Besides, the northern part of the city has infrastructure to support growth whereas the south must add or extend it. Maybe that's a pedantic generalization, but I think it's the pedantic truth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, that's beautiful. Maybe by the time it's fully built out, I can afford to live there...one could dream.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This project will go before the planning commission on September 13th. Detailed planning documents should be availiable by September 6th.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


I'm impressed with the design. I don't have a problem with reducing the numbers of housing though. As for Shore Drive, it needs to be 6 lanes now. In fact it should have been 6 lanes years ago. I can see people not wanintg a VB Blvd, but the fact is this corridor is wildy popular and a boon for tax revenues. I'm all for open spaces, but that's kind of what First Landing Park and the beach itself are for. Better to build stylish condos than a strip mall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Better to preserve open space as passive parks. Shore Drive needing 6 lanes is the result of poor planning. All these condo complexes along the Bay should never have been built. It's not just about the increased traffic but also the lack of civic infrastructure in that area from schools to fire stations to libraries. Maybe if Sandler and McCleskey pay for additions to schools, a new fire station, and a library then I may be okay with it. But this project in its current design is way too much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With it being a 10 year project I would imagine there is some of those points that you made being addressed with the city. If the city approves it, its their responsiblity to supply those public facilities

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The City could negotiate with the developers that the development will be approved if the developrs pay for a portion of those facilities. If not, then too bad, the project is rejected because of inadequate facilities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know alot of people hate this development but I like it! I'm glad the developers are doing this as well with the shore drive improvements.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The developers are proposing a TIF around their development and Point Chesapeake to pay for the improvements. However, the developers aren't paying for the upfront cost and getting reimbursed like General Growth is with the Lynnhaven Mall improvements. Instead they want the City to issue bonds putting the City into more debt and reducing its ability to issue bonds at low yields for more pressing capital improvement projects like the Constitution extension.

The Sandlers are valuing their development at $1 billion dollars at build-out. Instead of playing a shell game with the City's money, why not propose to do the Lynnhaven model or even pay part or all of the improvements themselves? But that could be part of the negotiations.

With BayVista and Point Chesapeake, there isn't much, if any land besides Indigo Dunes, left for development along Shore Drive. So the current traffic situation is what can be expected for the future. The existing 4-lane road despite rush hour jams can handle it. However, add 1100 units and the situation changes. Shore Drive will have to go to 6 lanes. That is not part of the Sandlers' proposal. That is a cost the City will have to pick up with the help of the Commonwealth. So in effect, the Sandlers' are not offering to help the existing situation and will be exacerbating it.

With 1100 units, the developer assumes a 10 year time table from today to build-out. If this is to be a $1 billion development, units will have to average $850,000 by build-out (this accounts for the retail component). That is a lot of expensive homes especially if you assume home prices will continue to increase at a historical 4% per annum (that includes the recent run-up). Still, let's continue with that $1 billion assumption. That's $10 million in taxes at current property tax rates. Is that going to cover all the infrastructure and associated maintenance that this project will require? I'm not convinced. For this reason, and for the impacts to quality of life and the environment in the Shore Drive area, I am against this project. The City should continue working toward acquiring this property for use as a passive park. This can be funded by selling off a parcel for commercial development on the corner of Shore and Marlin Bay (across from the 7-11) and a strip along Chesterfield for residential development (50-100 units valued at a $600,000 each), but the vast majority of the 69 acres (around 60 acres) including all the coastal property would be open space.

An aside, here's a link to a ODU economic power point presentation: ODU Presentation

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hoobo, very well worded and laid out. however, VB city council's math adds up like this:

open land = more houses = more money/exposure/population/tourism/etc/etc = damn the common sense and previous guidelines, full speed ahead

the (now imaginary) green line, shore drive development, with the exception of the oceana back tracking, when's the last time virginia beach really turned down some major development projects? If they don't turn this one down, what will they turn down?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am also opposed to this project bc of the TIF factor and location. In the past the city has been pretty conservative with the TIF only for the TC, Lynnhaven and Oceanfront areas. Allowing developers to implement a TIF for this project would set a bad precedent. Imagine the amount of developers in the area who would also be looking for a hand out such as this. IMO TIFS should only be used for the public good and not for private construction such as this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like this project 'in theory'. In theory it's aethetically pleasing, it'll bring more tax dollars into city coffers, and will reemphasize the northern portions of the city.

But along with that... the traffic snarls are going to be horrendous, not that they're peachy keen as is... I think they need to be approached by the city, up-front, for a more mutually-beneficial solution as to the transportation, and I agree. Employing a TIF on a private project will set a precedent where other developers will feel entitled and the repercussions could not be so great for future developments in the city.

Either way, if the project can work out transportation issues (and if the project will cost $1 billion, they can afford a couple million set aside for road improvements) then I wouldn't have a problem with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.