Jump to content

St. Paul's Quadrant (Phase 2-Under Construction)


Aughie

Recommended Posts


Point taken. Just trying to illustrate major differences between Norfolk and other housing authorities. However, continue to develop every housing project to look like broad creek and you'll continue to get the same results.

It's not about finding an interesting design for or putting a pretty face on existing housing. It's about finding an alternative to having this housing in the heart of downtown. The city needs to make better use of this land to ensure its long-term health. The challenge is to find a solution fair and acceptable to existing residents. In any case, the city has to make some hard choices.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not about finding an interesting design for or putting a pretty face on existing housing. It's about finding an alternative to having this housing in the heart of downtown. The city needs to make better use of this land to ensure its long-term health. The challenge is to find a solution fair and acceptable to existing residents. In any case, the city has to make some hard choices.

^+1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

It's not about finding an interesting design for or putting a pretty face on existing housing. It's about finding an alternative to having this housing in the heart of downtown. The city needs to make better use of this land to ensure its long-term health. The challenge is to find a solution fair and acceptable to existing residents. In any case, the city has to make some hard choices.

I think a smarter move would be to build something like this down towards Norfolk State Inside the triangle formed by Tidewater Dr, Brambleton and 264 and allow the entire area West of Tidewater Dr and South of Virginia Beach Blvd to be designated for future "Downtown Development."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Anyone know what/if anything is going to be built on the corner of Fenchurch and Wood St.? They started tearing down the building on the corner there next to the church about a week ago.

Is this 555 Fenchurch St. next to St. John's AME church on Bute St. If it is my late father had his dentist practice in that building. Interesting because I remember when this building was first built in 1974 as a catalyst for Church St. Redevelopment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is this 555 Fenchurch St. next to St. John's AME church on Bute St. If it is my late father had his dentist practice in that building. Interesting because I remember when this building was first built in 1974 as a catalyst for Church St. Redevelopment.

As I recall, there was a development slated for that land but the city rejected it and bought the land from the developer. I'm unsure what is supposed to go there now, for all we know the city is making another surface lot. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11. CAJE, for the following applications on property located on the northwest corner of Wood Street and Church Street; property fronts 436 feet, more or less, along the northern line of Wood Street and 287 feet, more or less, along the western line of Church Street; property also fronts 486 feet, more or less, along the southern and eastern line of Fox Street, and 99 feet, more or less along the southern line of Bute Street; premises numbered 555 Church Street (Parcels B-1 and B-2):

This project was rejected by council. I have no idea what happened but i'm currently in the process of finding out.

ACTION: The Ordinance as introduced was LOST.

Yeah, the project that was slated to go there was rejected years ago. This is definitely a strange development.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The December eviction date has long past, I wonder what the deal is??? I wonder will they hang around for another 5 to 10 years.

I was watching an interesting show on channel 15 about the housing authorities of America. Much like Broad Creek, they are trashing the old slummy looking housing projects and replacing them with colonial style homes. The result, like Broad Creek is that it is now a mixed income area, high volume units are replace with a small percentage of new units (of course they are pissed about that). But get this, I think everyone will find this interesting; The fed's and city governments are paying private developers to manage the areas..........................They make the rules and the government cuts them the check. My question is, what are social workers going to do when they are now replace with secretaries to do what they once did.....

Hopefully for our area, they just gut it out and relocate all of them, spread them out, and "make them work and work all the time".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe Norfolk could take bids to build cheap loft style apartments for some of its less fortunate. I believe you can go as high as 6 floors with a wood frame building. They could use the subsidized money they were going to use for Granby tower as incentive. One stipulation, you must have a job to rent one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe Norfolk could take bids to build cheap loft style apartments for some of its less fortunate. I believe you can go as high as 6 floors with a wood frame building. They could use the subsidized money they were going to use for Granby tower as incentive. One stipulation, you must have a job to rent one.

The use of wood building for about 6 floors has made it much more affordable for developers to build within downtown and the city as a whole. Norfolk could easily benefit from this type of development and neighborhood growth. It just needs small developers to start taking chances on neighborhoods throughout Norfolk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
  • 3 weeks later...

I was thinking that the Dowtown Plaza site should be set aside for commercial development. I can see a cluster of mid to high rise office buildings on this site surrounded by residential development. What is the current plan for the Downtown Plaza site?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that the city has plans for the Downtown Plaza site. They are practicing some foresight here. They are using this site for parking while the Wachovia Center is being built. Remember that the Monticello Garage and surface parking lot were lost for construction.

When the block is completed and the new parking garage is available, then the parking lot will be prime for development.

Lets all hope that when this time arrives, that the economy will be on the rise and that the city will be highly considering denser development instead of suburbian type houses!!!! <_<

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

112311.jpg

112321.jpg

Details unveiled

Preliminary plans call for a dense mix of housing, retail, office and recreational uses in the 100-plus acres of mostly city-owned land. The city also envisions 378,000 square feet of retail space, about 260,000 square feet of office space and a recreation area with playgrounds, fields and a community center.

What

Link to comment
Share on other sites

lol, beat me to it

I'm too lazy to rip the renderings from VP, but they show 10-15 story buildings on St Paul's Blvd, replaced ABC, McDonalds, the new surface lot, which is GREAT! :)

Overall it looks like they did everything to accomadate everyone, i'd like to see some more thorough items, and i already know that the urban utopia of inter-mingling economical status will be a tough sell, more so than Broad Creek.

But mutli-use, urban, office space, parks included, public housing. Looks like they hit the main selling points.

Edited by spiker3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Overall it looks like they did everything to accomadate everyone, i'd like to see some more thorough items, and i already know that the urban utopia of inter-mingling economical status will be a tough sell, more so than Broad Creek.

That was pretty much my immediate thought. It is a wonderful concept on paper, but getting people to purchase market-rate homes that are next to public housing is extremely tough. I will be honest enough to admit that I would not plunk down the money for a market-rate home in that area.

I'd prefer it if Norfolk focused mainly on office buildings, retail, and entertainment in the St. Paul's Quadrant rather than housing. But, it is obvious that housing is the direction that Norfolk wants to go with this area.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That was pretty much my immediate thought. It is a wonderful concept on paper, but getting people to purchase market-rate homes that are next to public housing is extremely tough. I will be honest enough to admit that I would not plunk down the money for a market-rate home in that area.

I'd prefer it if Norfolk focused mainly on office buildings, retail, and entertainment in the St. Paul's Quadrant rather than housing. But, it is obvious that housing is the direction that Norfolk wants to go with this area.

While I would prefer that too there are political realities here that must be considered. The people in Tidewater Gardens must go somewhere. Anywhere that Norfolk would try to move them too they'd meet with considerable resistance and public protest. At the end of the day, the only viable solution may be to incorporate the public housing in a mixed income setting, thereby revitalizing the area and diluting the concentrated poverty that exist there currently.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I would prefer that too there are political realities here that must be considered. The people in Tidewater Gardens must go somewhere. Anywhere that Norfolk would try to move them too they'd meet with considerable resistance and public protest. At the end of the day, the only viable solution may be to incorporate the public housing in a mixed income setting, thereby revitalizing the area and diluting the concentrated poverty that exist there currently.

My initial response to putting a prettier face on public housing, right in the heart of the downtown business district, was negative. However, I have to agree with vdogg's comment on where else to move the public housing. I guess if the buildings are attractive and opportunities from surrounding businesses are created, it may work out in the long run. Giving people a safe and attractive place to live and jobs to move them up, what could be better. I do agree with Rokk above, I'd rather see an extension of the business district (along with parks) than housing, but it appears it's going to happen, so hopefully they'll do it in the best way possible.

Are there any similar successful efforts elsewhere to learn from?

Edited by Sky06
Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I would prefer that too there are political realities here that must be considered. The people in Tidewater Gardens must go somewhere. Anywhere that Norfolk would try to move them too they'd meet with considerable resistance and public protest. At the end of the day, the only viable solution may be to incorporate the public housing in a mixed income setting, thereby revitalizing the area and diluting the concentrated poverty that exist there currently.

I totally agree with you. I just think it will be a tough sell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • 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.