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

[vdogg]

The entirety of Fenchurch street is undergoing demolition. I had no idea they were going to undertake this much at once. Once things are fully underway, this may well be the most massive construction project Norfolk has ever seen.

[vdogg]

I'll be honest, I think I really failed to grasp the enormity of this project. Now that all the construction equipment is out and all the buildings are cordoned off, this is basically going to double the size of our downtown.

[vdogg]

From what I can tell, the buildings for the Transit Center, block 19, and block 20 are all under construction. I don't have a name for the structures on 19 and 20 yet, so can't break them out into separate threads. The pump station is of course under construction. All the rest of the housing bounded by Brambleton (to the North)  and Church Street is either undergoing or being prepared for demolition.

[vdogg]

Attaching a document that describes in detail the block 17/18 apartments that are currently under construction. Warning, large pdf.

Block 17 Apartments.pdf

[vdogg]

Block 19/20 Apartments. Warning, large pdf.

Block-20-2020 (2).pdf

[baobabs727]

Some updated renders for Tidewater Gardens from the recent Planning Commission workshop. 

 

Edited August 27, 2021 by baobabs727

[vdogg]

5 hours ago, baobabs727 said:

Some updated renders for Tidewater Gardens from the recent Planning Commission workshop. 

Correct me if I'm wrong but a lot of this seems to be from another phase and not connected to blocks 17-20 (except for the first one)?

[BeagleAccountant]

The city is currently conducting a survey on the resilience park that will border the St Paul’s development along Tidewater Drive.

https://opentownhall.us5.list-manage.com/track/click?u=afcceb1b9e6a294a87a9831ec&id=0d883815d3&e=e1ac87f5b8

[baobabs727]

2 hours ago, vdogg said:

Correct me if I'm wrong but a lot of this seems to be from another phase and not connected to blocks 17-20 (except for the first one)?

I'm likely not as up to date on all of the block details as are you, and I didn't listen to the entire presentation. However, the presenters made clear that these renders were not representative of the entire TG development...and specifically, not inclusive of the final phases. So, I would assume all of this would be part of the early phase build-out.  What do you think about the design? I'll add some more overhead perspectives. Maybe that will help you  (and myself)  with the block orientation.  

I have updated my original post to include the city planning workshop video. 

Edited August 27, 2021 by baobabs727

[baobabs727]

Perhaps this will help, VDOGG.

 

 

[brikkman]

All this time later, still disappointing...

[BFG]

That’s a lotta 4-story apartment buildings…I don’t hate it or anything but it’s like the grandchild of Ghent. 

[Arctic_Tern]

It's not even as dense as Ghent is though. It's more like an expanded version of that area of Granby with 201 Twenty One, The Element, and The Alexander, except now with more surface lots. I'm okay with a 4/5 story urban neighborhood, but make it urban gosh dangit!

[vdogg]

4 hours ago, baobabs727 said:

Perhaps this will help, VDOGG.

 

 

That does help. Blocks 9 and 16 are for a later phase, and likely won't start until completion of 17-20. I'm liking the density, but this 2-5 story crap is depressing. At this point I'd be ecstatic to see a midrise thrown in here or there.

Blocks 17-20 are the blocks immediately adjacent to the bus station.

[zeppelin14]

I mean, it's a million times better than what is currently there but would it kill Norfolk to go above 4 stories? Maybe add in some 6, 8, 10, 12 story buildings just for variety?

[vdogg]

All hope is not lost. From watching the meeting blocks 7a/7b have been set aside as higher density, higher intensity commercial opportunities. They appear to be leaving that open for office and/or mixed use.

 

And now you have some idiot on the planning commission asking for detached single family home opportunities. This isn’t Virginia Beach… 

[BFG]

That makes sense. I remember going to one of the meetings at the Catholic church and seeing a vague mention of higher density on that side of SPQ. Glad to see they’re sticking to that plan. 

[baobabs727]

2 hours ago, vdogg said:

All hope is not lost. From watching the meeting blocks 7a/7b have been set aside as higher density, higher intensity commercial opportunities. They appear to be leaving that open for office and/or mixed use.

 

And now you have some idiot on the planning commission asking for detached single family home opportunities. This isn’t Virginia Beach… 

Yeah, I heard him going on and on. I think that’s the Chairman.

[lammius]

Wayment.  The whole green block of "5" (what looks like 3 or 4 city blocks) is only going to have 87 units?  Is that right??

[mistermetaj]

This update looks to be a consequence of too much community input and too much of the city trying to appease everyone.

If this is really the route St. Paul's is going to take, at least go all the way Ghent with it with faux historic brick colonial homes and apartment buildings. Give me columns and cornices. Give me a fake Old Town Alexandria. Revive the look of 1920-1940 Norfolk. Bring back hits history. Just please don't be the architecture we see in those renderings.

[BFG]

I don’t mind a mix of old and new. I just want them to not be afraid to build an apartment taller than four stories (and five stories doesn’t count). 

[baobabs727]

I’m not sure I understand all the disgruntlement here. What were you expecting?  Is it all about density for most of you…or is it about architecture? That’s not entirely clear from the comments, but I’m sensing it’s more about the density (or the perceived lack thereof).  

And yes, of course they took “community input” into serious consideration. After all, it is their community, not ours. This is not a place most of us are going to visit on a weekly or monthly basis (that is unless you live there or someone you know lives there). For after all is said and done, this is a neighborhood. A real neighborhood for the people. And those residents said they didn’t want the Uber-density or the verticality (the two often go hand-in-hand). What they did want was some elements of classic architecture that would harken back to the history of the place. The design team likely forced some forward-looking buildings in there.

Truly, I don’t see all that much in the way of real, traditional design, at least none that is particularly staid or reproduction-oriented. It’s more transitional in nature. Clearly, the design team were aiming for an eclectic mix of styles and scale that would give the appearance of a neighborhood developing organically on its own …over many decades. They also wanted to make this mixed-income, and so the flats, townhomes and duplexes would likely be more expensive than the apartment-style dwellings.  

Edited August 30, 2021 by baobabs727

[mistermetaj]

7 minutes ago, baobabs727 said:

I’m not sure I understand all the disgruntlement here. What were you expecting?  Is it all about density for most of you…or is it about architecture? That’s not entirely clear from the comments, but I’m sensing it’s more about the density (or the perceived lack thereof).  

And yes, of course they took “community input” into serious consideration. After all, it is their community, not ours. This is not a place most of us are going to visit on a weekly or monthly basis (that is unless you live there or someone you know lives there). For after all is said and done, this is a neighborhood. A real neighborhood for the people. And those residents said they didn’t want the Uber-density or the verticality (the two often go hand-in-hand). What they did want was some elements of classic architecture that would harken back to the history of the place. The design team likely forced some forward-looking buildings in there.

Truly, I don’t see all that much in the way of real, traditional design, at least none that is particularly staid or reproduction-oriented. It’s more transitional in nature. Clearly, the design team were aiming for an eclectic mix of styles and scale that would give the appearance of a neighborhood developing organically on its own …over many decades. 

I think we look at this plot of land from such diametrically opposed views that it's not worth talking about some of those points you made. All I'll say is I reject the concept of "their community" and "real neighborhood" or having a handful of people's opinions serving as the standard for a plot of land 1/3 the size of all of downtown. This area represents much more than that for the small community that lives there now and the much larger community this is meant to attract in the future.

Per your question of density and architecture, why can't it be both? I've never been one to care much for height, but certainly believe the eradication of surface parking and having at least 4-6 story buildings goes a long way in building an urban fabric that is worth while. Detached townhouses with surface parking? GTF out of here with that kind of rendering for a downtown. It's pathetic.

In terms of architecture, whatever the design team attempted to do in these renderings, they failed. It's a hodgepodge of cheap looking apartments and bland sometimes standalone townhouses. There is nothing historic looking or forward-looking. It's unoriginal, in-cohesive, and underwhelming. There are plenty of buildings in the Freemason district and Ghent to get inspiration from, of what would add to and revive this land. They have fallen terribly short.

 

 

[baobabs727]

 

6 minutes ago, mistermetaj said:

I think we look at this plot of land from such diametrically opposed views that it's not worth talking about some of those points you made. All I'll say is I reject the concept of "their community" and "real neighborhood" or having a handful of people's opinions serving as the standard for a plot of land 1/3 the size of all of downtown. This area represents much more than that for the small community that lives there now and the much larger community this is meant to attract in the future.

Per your question of density and architecture, why can't it be both? I've never been one to care much for height, but certainly believe the eradication of surface parking and having at least 4-6 story buildings goes a long way in building an urban fabric that is worth while. Detached townhouses with surface parking? GTF out of here with that kind of rendering for a downtown. It's pathetic.

In terms of architecture, whatever the design team attempted to do in these renderings, they failed. It's a hodgepodge of cheap looking apartments and bland sometimes standalone townhouses. There is nothing historic looking or forward-looking. It's unoriginal, in-cohesive, and underwhelming. There are plenty of buildings in the Freemason district and Ghent to get inspiration from, of what would add to and revive this land. They have fallen terribly short.

 

 

Wow. As to your first paragraph, I “reject the notion, ” patently and unequivocally,  of anyone expressly preempting or quashing any meaningful discussion on a topic simply because one happens to disagree with another board member. 

Secondly, it would appear that elitism is alive and well in urban planning and community development circles. You see, it’s not about you or me or some academic white paper…or even a sometimes-lofty  back-and-forth on an online development  forum.

Nay, it’s all about the folks.  And the folks have spoken. And the Council has their back.  So adjust your worldview accordingly. 

Additionally, I think perhaps you need to put some things into perspective here. This PC video presentation covered but a portion of TG redevelopment representing a scant percentage of the overall developable acreage in SPQ.  So let’s take a wait-and-see approach before we talk about “GTF” out with this and “pathetic” that, shall we?

Finally, taste in architecture is quite personal. I see it as all perfectly fine. Nothing special, nothing particularly offensive.  But you do realize that the budget here would never allow for phenomenal, groundbreaking design, right? Again, this is a neighborhood for the people, and it is sure as hell a tremendous improvement over what was there before.  Now THAT was TRULY “cheap-looking” and “underwhelming.” 

 

[mistermetaj]

2 minutes ago, baobabs727 said:

 

Wow. As to your first paragraph, I “reject the notion, ” patently and unequivocally,  of anyone expressly preempting or quashing any meaningful discussion on a topic simply because one happens to disagree with another board member. 

Secondly, it would appear that elitism is alive and well in urban planning and community development circles. You see, it’s not about you or me or some academic white paper…or even a sometimes-lofty  back-and-forth on an online development  forum.

Nay, it’s all about the folks.  And the folks have spoken. And the Council has their back.  So adjust your worldview accordingly. 

Additionally, I think perhaps you need to put some things into perspective here. This PC video presentation covered but a portion of TG redevelopment representing a scant percentage of the overall developable acreage in SPQ.  So let’s take a wait-and-see approach before we talk about “GTF” out with this and “pathetic” that, shall we?

Finally, taste in architecture is quite personal. I see it as all perfectly fine. Nothing special, nothing particularly offensive.  But you do realize that the budget here would never allow for phenomenal, groundbreaking design, right? Again, this is a neighborhood for the people, and it is sure as hell a tremendous improvement over what was there before.  Now THAT was TRULY “cheap-looking” and “underwhelming.” 

 

Exactly why there was no point in the having the conversation and why it wasn't going to be meaningful if we had it.  You've now added "elitism" to the ledger followed up by saying how it's "not about you or me". Clearly the conversation we could have had would have digressed quickly into unnecessary mud slinging, as it seems to already have. I never said it was about you or me, and was happy to reject the notions you provided, while simultaneously realizing from your post there was no benefit taking that part any further. If you want the last word on it in future posts, you are welcome to have it.

I fully concede my views differ from the "folks...and City Council" as these renderings clearly show. That doesn't make any of this a good idea or require I adjust my worldview. Simply stated, i think what they are building right now is a mistake in its pseudo-urban form, function, and design. Limiting input to just the current community (if that is even what they did) when there is a goal of attracting a much broader community to the area is a mistake and limits potential now and in the future.

While this is only a percentage of the land, it's still multiple blocks and, along with the surface parking, remains everything I said about it in my previous post. Clearly there is enough intent behind this design to show us the direction they have chosen, and I find it pathetic. We've waited YEARS for this redevelopment and from what I see in these renderings, it's very disappointing.

Taste in architecture is personal no doubt. What you don't find offensive, I do. I expressed it just as you did. The budget didn't need to be huge to create a cohesive, brick centric, faux historical look, with small details design that invokes the history of Norfolk and create a sense of place. Even St. Paul's Apartments, which I'm sure were as low a budget at least tried to do that. Being just a step above 60s government housing is hardly a step above anything architecturally.