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

[Arctic_Tern]

On 9/15/2021 at 2:23 PM, vdogg said:

Richmond is probably the most urban place outside of NoVa and they have a ton of hidden surface lots. When I think urban, I think the streetscape and overall connectedness are far more important than anything hidden from view. And surface lots don't have to stay surface lots forever. We've seen plenty redeveloped in this area, so I don't think we're locking ourselves in by having lots hidden from view.

Y'all when I say density I don't mean "height", I mean density. Having a dense area of 4-5 story buildings is much better than having 8-9 story buildings with parking lots everywhere. But having 4-5 story buildings with parking lots everywhere is not dense and it is not urban.

And the examples that you have provided are much more compact than what is being presented. These lots are gigantic compared to what you pictured. And how do you develop these lots in the future when they're locked in the center of the block? I don't really see how it's possible. All we're doing if we move forward with this development is committing to having low density development/parking lots having a significant presence in our downtown for the next 50 years. 

[Arctic_Tern]

Also when I hear folks talking about how much they loved living in Ghent, rarely do I hear them talk about Ghent Village or Ghent on the Square. Those are a lot less appealing than actual Ghent is.

[Icetera]

3 hours ago, Arctic_Tern said:

And how do you develop these lots in the future when they're locked in the center of the block? I don't really see how it's possible.

It is definitely possible as Richmond is doing such now, even though our blocks are typically on the smaller side (though not Portland small).  An example is Robinson Square Alley where we filled in unutilized land with 4 townhomes, within a dense Fan housing block.  Manchester has more such examples underway.  Some proposals for significantly denser projects are springing up closer to downtown proper.

Location of Robinson Square Alley (sadly Google satellite is way behind):

[urbanlife]

On 9/13/2021 at 8:33 AM, BFG said:

I'd love to see this brought back and put on the proposed stretch of high rises that would be closer to where Popeye's sits. A row of buildings like this would fill in the gaps in the skyline as seen from 264. That gap between City Hall Ave. and about Charlotte St. has bugged me for years.

One thing that has always confused me about the history of Norfolk is when the redeveloped downtown in 1955, why did they tear down all the old buildings along Main when they could have just put all the new office buildings along St Paul, which was a new street that they cut through the old street pattern. That way it would have been an expansion of downtown rather than knocking down the existing downtown. Unfortunately that decision wasn't made back then.

[Norf Native]

 

This is on the planning commission's  October agenda (still no renderings):

TRG COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, for a Rezoning from C-C (Community – Commercial) to D-BC (Downtown – Business Center) at 645 Church Street. The purpose of this request is to allow the construction of a multi-family apartment community development with 85 dwelling units.

TRG COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, for a Development Certificate at 645 Church Street. The purpose of this request is to allow the construction of a multi-family apartment community development with 85 dwelling units.  And another development on Lincoln Street: NORFOLK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY to vacate the right-of-way of a portion of Lincoln Street.  The purpose of this request is to support the development of a multi-family apartment community development on an adjacent parcel.

Edited September 22, 2021 by Norf Native
update

[vdogg]

1 hour ago, Norf Native said:

 

This is on the planning commission's  October agenda (still no renderings):

TRG COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, for a Rezoning from C-C (Community – Commercial) to D-BC (Downtown – Business Center) at 645 Church Street. The purpose of this request is to allow the construction of a multi-family apartment community development with 85 dwelling units.

TRG COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, for a Development Certificate at 645 Church Street. The purpose of this request is to allow the construction of a multi-family apartment community development with 85 dwelling units.  And another development on Lincoln Street: NORFOLK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY to vacate the right-of-way of a portion of Lincoln Street.  The purpose of this request is to support the development of a multi-family apartment community development on an adjacent parcel.

Was hoping for a lot more than 85. Might get a 3-story building out of that. Imagined something mediocre, and they failed to live up to even that dismal projection. At this point I’d rather they just keep the Willis building…

[Norf Native]

Block 9 is 80 units and 4 floors, so should be comparable in size.

[Norf Native]

Actually, I think the Lincoln Street right of way is part of the 645 development and not a separate development.

[mintscraft56]

5 hours ago, vdogg said:

Was hoping for a lot more than 85. Might get a 3-story building out of that. Imagined something mediocre, and they failed to live up to even that dismal projection. At this point I’d rather they just keep the Willis building…

Our cities like to scale down everything.  Also are you guys able to see the post I made? Im not sure how some of this site works.

[Norf Native]

Here is a rendering of the new development replacing the 645 Church Street building (on the ARB agenda for 11 Oct).  Lots more renderings here:

Microsoft Word - 11 October 2021 ARB Agenda.doc (iqm2.com)

 

 

Edited September 27, 2021 by Norf Native
Edit

[vdogg]

3 hours ago, Norf Native said:

Here is a rendering of the new development replacing the 645 Church Street building (on the ARB agenda for 11 Oct).  Lots more renderings here:

Microsoft Word - 11 October 2021 ARB Agenda.doc (iqm2.com)

 

 

Too prominent of a street corner for 4 stories… And I’m not entirely sure about the design. I’m very fearful of what they plan to do with the Snyder lot. The sketches show a 5-story building and they seem to be militantly sticking to the concept of building low rise buildings on prime downtown land. I’d love to see this type of development rebuild the old church street corridor, but we need to get a bit more dynamic with the uses and heights here…

The more I look at it the more I think it would be perfectly in place in the new urban districts at the Virginia Beach oceanfront, but it doesn’t quite work here.

[urbanlife]

The long sidewalk of dead space is a bit concerning about how this whole development is going to turn out. It doesn't look like it will be that active of a district.

[BFG]

I know I keep talking about height, and I'm not against apartment buildings, but I do think a corner lot deserves more than another four-story building. A taller apartment could make for a nice entrance to SPQ and create some variety. 

[EJ_LEWIS]

The rendering look nice enough.  My Dad's Dental Practice use to be in 555 Fenchurch St. and I grew up as a member of St. John's AME Church Bute St.   I always hated the vast parking lot for Downtown Plaza and I love seeing new housing much of it affordable being built where the shopping center with the wasteland of a parking lot use to be.  As far as height I'm ok with 4 story buildings in the location where they will be built, but it would be nice to have increasingly taller buildings the closer you get to Main and St. Paul's.  

[mintscraft56]

 

What ever happened to these Early St. Paul area renderings! We could have made such a nice city district.....Now it looks like it will be ghent version 2. We were promised this! not abunch of 2-3 story buildings!

[carolinaboy]

11 hours ago, mintscraft56 said:

 

What ever happened to these Early St. Paul area renderings! We could have made such a nice city district.....Now it looks like it will be ghent version 2. We were promised this! not abunch of 2-3 story buildings!

You have to find someone willing to build like that in order for it to happen. Conceptual drawings are more exciting that what actually gets built (usually).

[BFG]

On 9/27/2021 at 12:45 PM, Norf Native said:

Here is a rendering of the new development replacing the 645 Church Street building (on the ARB agenda for 11 Oct).  Lots more renderings here:

Microsoft Word - 11 October 2021 ARB Agenda.doc (iqm2.com)

 

 

They’ve started tearing down the original office building. 

[brikkman]

18 hours ago, BFG said:

They’ve started tearing down the original office building. 

its just amazing how they just tear stuff down as opposed to other cities. They find zero value in keeping any of these structures, not even just for historical reasons. I realize this building has zero historical value, but things get tore down quickly around there.

[BFG]

That blew my mind too. The building was only about 35 years old; given Norfolk's recent obsession with turning old offices into apartments, I'm a bit surprised they didn't try to repurpose the building somehow.

[EJ_LEWIS]

Norfolk is the only city that I know of that tears down buildings that are only a few decades old.  This building housed black professionals like the one that was torn down right across the street.  My late Father's dental practice use to stand across Bute Street from this building.  555 Fenchurch St. stood for only 38 years when it was torn down in 2002.  

[brikkman]

I know we have talked about this before in the past but really quick, what do we think this mindset really is?

I personally think its "visual fatigue". The council/city/supporters are just soooooooooooooooo tired of seeing things there that the mindset of ANYTHING would be better if someone is willing to bankroll it. I've always said this plan was bad, unworthy,  and a terrible way to use that land. Everything just seem so parsed right? No clear direction other than "NEW"....

Edited October 13, 2021 by brikkman

[BFG]

I think it's that and also an issue of "just good enough". That's the area's biggest problem: accepting the status quo. Every so often we'll get something like The Main, and someone will call it a "game-changer". Meanwhile cities like Charlotte probably build something like that every year.

[Norf Native]

Anyone know anything about this?  This is on the ARB agenda for discussion 6 Dec.

 

[BeagleAccountant]

1 hour ago, Norf Native said:

Anyone know anything about this?  This is on the ARB agenda for discussion 6 Dec.

 

I wonder if that's a typo and should be 698 instead of 968, which would be the parking lot across the street from Scope. That lot would make more sense given what has been built already in this project. I'm also not sure that they have even gotten to Young Terrace yet in the demolition process which would be necessary to build at 968 St Pauls.

[vdogg]

1 hour ago, BeagleAccountant said:

I wonder if that's a typo and should be 698 instead of 968, which would be the parking lot across the street from Scope. That lot would make more sense given what has been built already in this project. I'm also not sure that they have even gotten to Young Terrace yet in the demolition process which would be necessary to build at 968 St Pauls.

I don't have any details, but I'm guessing a 3-story 'highrise' with contemporary design...