Jump to content

Proposed: Echo Harbour

Downtowner

By Downtowner
in Richmond

Recommended Posts


  • Replies 365
  • Created
  • Last Reply
burt Megalopolis

burt

Posted
Posted

Sure thing JSI, and for future reference if you're interested, here's a link to the city clerk's website. It posts the agendas in advance of the meetings, as summaries and minutes after meetings have taken place.

City Clerk - City Council Meetings page

I like this site, Coupe. It's sorta like what Scottb used to provide at RCW.

Is there a way to give it a "sticky" designation so we can access it without having to dig into this thread to find it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
  • 1 month later...
  • 4 weeks later...
Downtowner Burg

Downtowner

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Burt I didn't take pictures of them just saw them on the News at 5:30 and they have totally changed the design to something more modern. Plus there are now only 180 Units. They have moved the towers further west of the property. But people are still against it. even though its on the most western part of the property.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
burt Megalopolis

burt

Posted
Posted

Burt I didn't take pictures of them just saw them on the News at 5:30 and they have totally changed the design to something more modern. Plus there are now only 180 Units. They have moved the towers further west of the property. But people are still against it. even though its on the most western part of the property.

How tall are they?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JSI Whistle-Stop

JSI

Posted
Posted

How tall are they?

I seem to remember them saying 180 ft. on the western most edge. I can see the anti-development folks not liking this new design although I think it would be great for Richmond. It appeared almost all glass. The woman they showed who was against the project didn't mention anything about the cement silos which are horrible. If she's fine with those then I don't see how she could have a beef with river front development privately funded that extends the canal walk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cadeho City

Cadeho

Posted
Posted

Simply...

H-I-D-E-O-U-S :sick:

This Ross guy needs to be [leave it to your imagination]ed for this atrocity. I personally will let this guy know how I feel every day. It's much worse than I thought.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
eandslee City

eandslee

Posted
Posted

Aw, these renderings are not THAT bad. They sure look better than the orginial preliminary drawings. There could be some improvements, but overall, I think it looks good. It would be nice to see some highrises next to the river over there and since the river access will be public, I can't complain. I hope it passes and gets built soon!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cadeho City

Cadeho

Posted
Posted

I admit it is an improvement over Watergate. But it still blocks the view from the hill. Imagine the view from Tree Hill with that glorious panorama of the city blocked by a giant wall? The only people who will enjoy the panoramic view from Libby Hill to the horizon will be those who live in the building. Now, people on the hill can see for miles and this thing should be scaled back even more. It should be built, but darn it make it even with the hill at least!

Joey a lot of the architecture that Richmond gets is drab and lacks vision. That communications tower would have been grand had it been built. The twin to the Main St Centre would have been nice. he first drawing of what would become Vistas was majestic. The buildings replacing the Murphy and the Nursing School are neat... but then Richmond has architects from backwoods "colleges" who hand out fake degrees and make these people think they can draw a building. Next, everyone would support towers at the base of Jefferson Hill and Taylor Hill parks, because money speaks volumes over viewsheds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mrd3b Unincorporated Area

mrd3b

Posted
Posted

Richmond has architects from backwoods "colleges" who hand out fake degrees and make these people think they can draw a building.

I deeply resent this statement. Richmond has many highly qualified architects with degrees from prestigious institutions. I personally know a number of such individuals. I can't personally attest to the merits of every univesity's program, but as a UVA school of architecture student, I can attest to the qualifications of the many Richmond architects with degrees from this institution, which I know from experience does not simply give out "fake degrees."

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ric75 Hamlet

ric75

Posted
Posted

I deeply resent this statement. Richmond has many highly qualified architects with degrees from prestigious institutions. I personally know a number of such individuals. I can't personally attest to the merits of every univesity's program, but as a UVA school of architecture student, I can attest to the qualifications of the many Richmond architects with degrees from this institution, which I know from experience does not simply give out "fake degrees."

Amen to that. Tech has quite a reputable architecture program as well. Another example of armchairitis. Everyone has a vision in their head as to what would look best, unfortunately if they actually put it on paper and displayed for tens of thousands to see as the Echo Harbor folks have, they'd be surprised to hear how many call their glorious vision "hideous". Overall I like the design and the way it addresses the riverfront. As Coupe pointed out, curved edges would add a lot to its aesthetics. Unfortunately, I think Church Hill residents will try and throw a monkey wrench into this. They seem to feel some sense of entitlement to reign over all they can see from their hilltops. Consider their opposition to the Shockoe Bottom stadium and now this. And I wonder how many of them actually get out of their houses and enjoy this historic view and how many are simply being NIMBY's? I'm likely going to express my support for this development... honestly I'm tired of looking at that forlorn stretch of river and those ugly silos. With proactive input, this can move forward and help continue the riverfront's Renaissance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
wrldcoupe4 Metropolitan Area

wrldcoupe4

Posted
Posted

**worth noting... the silo property will be acquired by the city, and will not be part of the Echo Harbour development.

Also, if people are displeased with designs, they shouldn't so much be unhappy with the architects as they should with the developers. Architects have great skill, but should be paid accordingly. If one wants a spectacular design, one must pay for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cadeho City

Cadeho

Posted
Posted

No doubt those from UVA and VT aren't backwoods, but most of what's proposed here are hardly remarkable. This design isn't that bad but the man certainly did not scale it back. Yes, Church Hill residents have a right to their view as Oregon Hill residents have a right to their view. This building is a wall that would destroy the unobstructed view of the southside to its horizon. The silos don't hinder the view nearly as much as this structure which already seem to dwarf them. The point is not about the bend in the river for me, that would be left unharmed. Has anyone been on Franklin at the park at night to see the beautiful city lights stretching for miles? What about the feeling of being on top of the world from that point? Well, let's screw the residents of Church Hill and others who appreciate this naturally provided view. Let's hand over the view to some snobs who deserve it better in their sleek highrise. I sure hope Church Hill tears this proposal to shreds and I will go to battle over it. It is not right to reserve something like this to a select few. The building can be built, but it has to be below the hill.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ric75 Hamlet

ric75

Posted
Posted

Are those first captures supposed to represent what the buildings will look like from atop Church Hill? I have a feeling the vantage point in these renderings is much lower but I'm not sure. As much as I love Richmond's terrain, it would be so much easier to build if everything was flat. Then we wouldn't have to worry about stadium seating architecture. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.