A map (larger) of the historic districts listed on the Virginia Landmarks Register and the National Register of Historic Places. This is the first city-wide map that I’ve seen that includes the semi-recent Fairmount Historic District.
A map (larger) of the historic districts listed on the Virginia Landmarks Register and the National Register of Historic Places. This is the first city-wide map that I’ve seen that includes the semi-recent Fairmount Historic District.
11 comments
Oh, we GOT the history… Now let’s give these great neighborhoods the historic CHARM of those in places like Charleston, Savannah, Boston, and New Orleans. No reason why Richmond shouldn’t be thought of like those places. No reason a’tol.
@1 How do you propose that we give the streets and neighborhoods historic “CHARM”?
That usually involves quite a bit of private investment (and commitment)to improve the structures and landscape. Just curious if you have some ideas. Having lived in two of the places that you mentioned, it doesn’t appear that many folks in our neighborhood have the same level of pride? in property ownership as some of these other places. I don’t understand it either.
taloose, I usually think you are a negative nancy on most subjects, but I agree with you here. I am from Charleston, and people there love their city and landmarks. They take pride in preservation and it shows as that may be one of the most beautiful cities. I was always proud to say I was from Charleston, but I just don’t feel the same way about Richmond. This place also has a bad reputation to overcome. Most outsiders think of Richmond as one big ghetto with murder, drugs, and theft around every corner. Now, Charleston does have it’s bad areas, but they make sure to keep it separated from the main historical areas. I have high hopes for this city, but it doesn’t look like things will be changing fast enough.
I’ve lived in two of those cities as well, and I found that the level of income in the historic districts in those cities is much higher than in Church Hill (at least a vast majority of CH). Try buying a house in Charleston below Broad, or in Savannah above Victory Blvd, or in Beacon Hill in Boston, or in the French Quarter in New Orleans, and you will pay dearly for the house and the taxes that go with it. We are blessed with quality historic homes which are affordable to young professionals as well as retirees. Sometimes it is a struggle to totally restore a property without a lot of sweat equity and time, but the result is truly satisfying.
@3…negative nancy…OK You’re entitled to your opinion. However, I would consider my perspective realistic, experienced and informed. I’ve thought yours to be a bit naive.
@4 It’s all relative. In both Savannah and Boston, incomes tend to be much higher for those who live in historic areas but the cost of the housing is also much higher. An average Church Hill home (south of broad) would sell for a few million in Beacon Hill or select areas of the Back Bay.
It really doesn’t take a bunch of money to ensure the outside of a home is clean, painted, and the landscape is tidy. Many of these projects are simply just “sweat equity” but they make a huge difference. It just seems that it’s all too common around here to neglect those things.
Taloose: While you’re tone is perhaps a little different than mine, I think we’re saying roughly the same thing: Richmond has tremendous potential that hasn’t been realized in the ways that it has in the other cities we’ve talked about. I see that, and find myself going back and forth between being at times energized by it – and at other times being frustrated by it.
I’ve lived in Richmond neighborhoods for the past 20 years (Jackson Ward, the Fan, Union Hill, Church Hill, Chimbo, etc.) and I’ll say that there HAS been a change in Richmond in the past 10 years – it’s been amazing to see the investment and “sweat equity” folks have been pouring into long neglected historic areas.
I remain hopeful that we can get to where our peer cities are (maybe beyond), but this down economy presents quite a hurdle. To keep the momentum going, we need a real commitment from the city to continue aggressively fighting crime and blight in and around its historic areas, and to take a strong pro-business approach in order to boost the local economy and create jobs. It’s going to be tough going no matter what, and what we can’t afford is to get bogged down (as Richmond in the past has been wont to do) in the back and forth over “gentrification,” etc. The city may have to actually find the guts to take sides in some instances.
It’s in EVERYONE’S best interest to bring back the “charm” to Richmond’s great historic neighborhoods, create jobs, raise the tax base (and thereby boost funding for parks, schools, museums, etc.) and indeed make this a place that folks are proud to live, work, and play in.
I’ll just add that, in fairness to the city, Richmond government HAS taken some positive steps in recent years – and it is very much appreciated. There has been a steady decline of violent crime (knock on wood), the city has generally supported the establishment of historic districts, and we’ve seen a round of crackdowns on slumloards in the area.
So a big Thanks is in order… and I hope the city will keep it up.
Looking at the map, what is the area just NE of the word “Chimborazo” called?
I believe you are referring to Oakwood Cemetery.
Nothing worth doing happens overnight. Frankly, in many ways we are where those places were 20 years ago. Broad social trends are favoring urban living. There is increasingly comprehensive planning and policy from the City. Historic districts are in place to protect the valuable historic building stock. Many building blocks to make this a Charleston or Savannah are in place.
What’s missing is a strong leadership vision from the City. The locality bends way too much to the hyper-localized NIMBY groups that require instant gratification. Nodding to the loudest neighbor is not leadership. Charleston has had the same mayor for over 20 years to see through the vision there. We need some strength and continuity over a long period, with the politial will to see a plan through over a long period without tripping over highly localized screams.
The canal walk is a great example of a long term project the City has been able to do here. 20 years from its construction it will be good backbone for the River area (it gets more used every year) – and it has already spawned the Capital Trail, which will in turn certainly solidify the “rural character” preservation of the Route 5 corridor, if development ever heads east. But the instant gratification people claim the canal walk is already a failure.
The best result for the region would be the end of the independent city system with political and planning unification for the entire region. That’s a long way off, though.
I am critical of the Canal Walk, not of its idea (I am really excited about the meeting of the Capital Trail and the East Coast Greenway), but its implementation. There’s been a lot of corporate welfare (remember the $50 million loan to Cordish) spent, with little return on investment. The subsidized law offices and condos are really sad when you compare how other cities have developed their river walks.
But the real issue with all of the downtown white elephants like Center Stage and the Canal Walk is that they are distracting badly needed money and attention from school and neighborhood renovation. Its disgusting how politicians keep telling citizens to be patient for these white elephants while our schools are still illegal under federal ADA law and families keep leaving the City once their kids come of school age.
So, its not about instant gratification, its about meeting public citizen priorities before private, corporate ones. And yes, this does go back to how Richmond cares for its historic neighborhoods.