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

[Willy18]

Personally, I don't think they should limit the height to any building in that district. Having an urban district with varying building heights makes it look "less planned out". There's nothing wrong with having a 4 story unit next to a 15+ story building. If there is demand and you have developer with interest, let them build. Streamline/shorten the approval process of structures and get out of the way of progress. 

[Young75]

On 2/12/2019 at 7:22 AM, Willy18 said:

Personally, I don't think they should limit the height to any building in that district. Having an urban district with varying building heights makes it look "less planned out". There's nothing wrong with having a 4 story unit next to a 15+ story building. If there is demand and you have developer with interest, let them build. Streamline/shorten the approval process of structures and get out of the way of progress. 

Yes! The variation of buildings is actually what makes a skyline. The city has a lot of momentum with these projects. I love this!

[mikeas]

On 2/12/2019 at 7:22 AM, Willy18 said:

Personally, I don't think they should limit the height to any building in that district. Having an urban district with varying building heights makes it look "less planned out". There's nothing wrong with having a 4 story unit next to a 15+ story building. If there is demand and you have developer with interest, let them build. Streamline/shorten the approval process of structures and get out of the way of progress. 

I heard from an architect friend that the desire lower height buildings because studies show it leads to increased street activity but that sounded kinda like BS to me...

[vdogg]

On 2/16/2019 at 5:41 PM, mikeas said:

I heard from an architect friend that the desire lower height buildings because studies show it leads to increased street activity but that sounded kinda like BS to me...

He must’ve never been to Manhattan . Street activity is a direct result of what’s actually on the street. If you have a bunch of pure office towers then of course downtown will die after dark because there’s nothing to keep people around after 5. If you have a mixed use tower with retail and restaurants at street level then things will stay pretty lively. It has nothing to do with the height.

[BFG]

On 2/12/2019 at 7:22 AM, Willy18 said:

Personally, I don't think they should limit the height to any building in that district. Having an urban district with varying building heights makes it look "less planned out". There's nothing wrong with having a 4 story unit next to a 15+ story building. If there is demand and you have developer with interest, let them build. Streamline/shorten the approval process of structures and get out of the way of progress. 

I’m at Town Center in VB right now and I agree 100%. I have my gripes with VB on a lot of things, but the mix of buildings they have at TC is a model Norfolk needs to follow. It would be a great addition and compliment to downtown. 

[Willy18]

On ‎2‎/‎16‎/‎2019 at 5:41 PM, mikeas said:

I heard from an architect friend that the desire lower height buildings because studies show it leads to increased street activity but that sounded kinda like BS to me...

I have never heard such rubbish. I would love to see the "study" that shows this. Taller buildings = more people per block = more people in general at the street level. Residents in NYC don't just jump from rooftop to rooftop to get around and shop, eat and socialize. 

[urbanlife]

On 2/16/2019 at 5:02 PM, vdogg said:

He must’ve never been to Manhattan . Street activity is a direct result of what’s actually on the street. If you have a bunch of pure office towers then of course downtown will die after dark because there’s nothing to keep people around after 5. If you have a mixed used tower with retail and restaurants at street level then things will stay pretty lively. It has nothing to do with the height.

This is true when it comes to urban planning. Taller buildings don't mean more people on the streets, Barcelona is a great example of this. Buildings that are 3-7 stories tall, all with retail space along the street sides are going to be much more active because someone living only a couple stories up is going to be more willing to come down to the street to enjoy their neighborhood than someone living 30 floors up. I am not saying there shouldn't be any taller buildings, just the bulk of them could easily be 3-10 stories and create a thriving neighborhood if the street level also includes commercial space.

Bringing up NYC is a good example of this, sure there are towers all over Manhattan, but Manhattan also has a bunch of neighborhoods made up of shorter buildings, and outside of Manhattan the city is full of 3-5 story buildings that make up all of their thriving neighborhoods.

[Willy18]

5 hours ago, urbanlife said:

This is true when it comes to urban planning. Taller buildings don't mean more people on the streets, Barcelona is a great example of this. Buildings that are 3-7 stories tall, all with retail space along the street sides are going to be much more active because someone living only a couple stories up is going to be more willing to come down to the street to enjoy their neighborhood than someone living 30 floors up. I am not saying there shouldn't be any taller buildings, just the bulk of them could easily be 3-10 stories and create a thriving neighborhood if the street level also includes commercial space.

Bringing up NYC is a good example of this, sure there are towers all over Manhattan, but Manhattan also has a bunch of neighborhoods made up of shorter buildings, and outside of Manhattan the city is full of 3-5 story buildings that make up all of their thriving neighborhoods.

I can see your point but people that live on the 11th-30th floor still have to work, eat, get groceries and socialize. Barcelona also has a population density that's higher than Mexico City and NYC combined so it's streets are going to be crazy busy. I think with that kind of density it wouldn't matter the height of the buildings.

Keep in mind, I live in the great suburban crystal city of VB. My street level activity and retail consists of congested 4-6 lane secondary roads and strip malls.  

[urbanlife]

17 hours ago, Willy18 said:

I can see your point but people that live on the 11th-30th floor still have to work, eat, get groceries and socialize. Barcelona also has a population density that's higher than Mexico City and NYC combined so it's streets are going to be crazy busy. I think with that kind of density it wouldn't matter the height of the buildings.

Keep in mind, I live in the great suburban crystal city of VB. My street level activity and retail consists of congested 4-6 lane secondary roads and strip malls.  

That's the thing with Barcelona, it has really high population density because the fairly compact city is all 4-7 story buildings. Could you imagine how dense and active Norfolk would be if much of the city, especially near downtown was all 4-7 story buildings. With high rises often times comes garages so people will often times take the elevator to the garage and drive to where they want to go, obviously there are exceptions to the rule, but in general a neighborhood only needs 4-7 story buildings filling it to be a really active neighborhood.

[BFG]

This is from a few weeks ago, but Norfolk was one of four finalists for a $30M grant from HUD, to redevelop SPQ. Someone on Facebook mentioned that Norfolk actually won, but I haven't found any articles yet. If it's true, it's excellent news for the city.

https://wtkr.com/2019/02/03/norfolk-selected-as-finalist-for-choice-neighborhoods-initiative-grant/

[vdogg]

So, basically, 2/3 of the entire St. Paul's District has a 5-story height limit. The 1/3 that does not is already being gobbled up by buildings less than 5-stories in height. 

 

[BFG]

From what I see, west of (Fen)church has no height restriction, so that leaves me optimistic. As long as the stretch along St. Paul has some height, I’m okay with this. 

[Willy18]

13 hours ago, Norfolk757Kid said:

I'd like to see them keep one row of the public housing so that it's not completely erased. 

I am NOT in agreement with that one. These buildings aren't the Alamo or anything that could even be considered historic. I say, erase everything...and use a very large eraser. 

[BFG]

I agree with everyone else, and this is probably the only time I'd say this, but there's more nostalgia than history in those buildings, but Norfolk doesn't gain anything by keeping even one building around. If they have an open park, maybe have a sign or plaque with a picture commemorating Tidewater Gardens, but I wouldn't go much further.

[urbanlife]

On 3/3/2019 at 11:05 PM, Virginia City said:

What would be the point of that?

A museum on living conditions of public housing and a stark reminder of mistakes that were made.

[vdogg]

There are plenty of ways to remember the conditions without preserving rundown housing. There could even be an exhibit in an actual museum. That housing needs to go.

[mistermetaj]

On 3/5/2019 at 4:29 PM, urbanlife said:

A museum on living conditions of public housing and a stark reminder of mistakes that were made.

When Young Terrace is being bulldozed we can talk about monuments to public housing. Until then Norfolk will have plenty left once Tidewater Gardens is gone.

[BFG]

Is there anything at Broad Creek to remember Bowling Park? Either within the neighborhood or at the Kroc Center? I wanna say yes but I honestly don’t remember. 

[EJ_LEWIS]

I think the monument should be about the people who lived in public housing not about the buildings themselves.  From what I remember some residents of Tidewater Park and Young Park consider themselves family more then a neighborhood. 

[urbanlife]

That looks disappointing for that location.  That area between St Paul and Fenchurch should be seen as an urban extension of downtown. This building looks like a very low bar is being made for what to expect in that portion of downtown.

[BFG]

Hopefully we’ll start seeing high-rise designs on that side. I’m kinda burned out on 4-story apartments. 

Edited March 14, 2019 by BFG

[urbanlife]

12 minutes ago, BFG said:

Hopefully we’ll start seeing high-rise designs on that side. I’m kinda burned out on 4-story apartments. 

four story apartment buildings are great when it comes to infill and expanding the urban footprint of the city. This location just seems like it should be where apartment highrises and such should be going.

[BeagleAccountant]

15 hours ago, urbanlife said:

four story apartment buildings are great when it comes to infill and expanding the urban footprint of the city. This location just seems like it should be where apartment highrises and such should be going.

I agree but at the very least it will look cohesive with the apartment buildings across the street.

[Willy18]

I truly hope the city doesn't allow this to become the norm in this district. We will end up with sea of these things resembling Port Warwick in NN. While Port Warwick isn't bad...just don't think it belongs next to a CBD that will soon have a blank canvas to work from. Norfolk has the opportunity to do very big things in this district and just "okaying" anything is not the answer. 

[Norfolk757Kid]

What about the three parcels of Popeyes, McDonalds and the Shell Station along St. Paul's south of the new bus station? Those are all locked in and will not be redeveloped in the near future I assume?