Image default

Eleven-story building proposed for Cary and Pear Streets

This hadn’t previously hit my radar… There is a proposal to develop the property located on the southwest corner of East Cary and Pear Streets (PDF):

It will be comprised of 9 stories of residential floors over 2 stories of partially underground parking. The Cary Street elevation will be 9 stories plus roof access (125.8 feet) above the street and the Dock street elevation will be 11 stories above grade. Off street parking will be provided for all owners and for visitors.

[sep]

Screen Shot 2015-09-08 at 7.55.55 PM

35 comments

katzenjaammer 09/08/2015 at 8:19 PM

Here we go again!

Reply
Cadeho 09/08/2015 at 9:00 PM

This one isn’t bad… it doesn’t break the horizon and block views more than what already exists.

Reply
Jason 09/08/2015 at 9:23 PM

It doesn’t break the horizon because the view is taken from 25′ in the air. Look, your standing above the trees.

Reply
Steve 09/08/2015 at 10:34 PM

I like it and think it is a good use of the property. It doesn’t obstruct anything and brings something of quality to the area versus a vacant overgrown lot.

Reply
Neighbor2 09/08/2015 at 10:42 PM

Would love to see some mixed use here. Why not some commercial space (an Aldi grocery store anyone???) just would like to see more reason for all these folks in the apartments and lofts to stay in the neighborhood.

Reply
BAF 09/08/2015 at 11:00 PM

Build it. Make sure to include a diner. Thanks.

Reply
Aud 09/08/2015 at 11:14 PM

Not as alarming as previous plans…

Reply
JB 09/09/2015 at 3:40 AM

I’m skeptical.

It doesn’t appear to hurt the views from Libbie Hill SO badly (and I say this as a resident that lives closer to Jefferson Park, so my interest is more in preservation of the city than as a direct neighbor).

Prior to reading the proposal, I wished it to appeal to buyers/owners so that a discussion about that area could involve mutually-invested persons. Then I saw that it was- in fact- aimed at buyers (hopefully) willing to pay 750k-1.3m to buy a condo within the development! We all know this isn’t going to happen.

Something doesn’t add up, and I fear that this could be a case of just plain ignorance on the part of the developers: or it’s them conspiring. (I also see signs that they will possibly retract their statements in the proposal asserting that they will rely on the CHA’s recommendations about the development.) I have a feeling that this will not end well, and I feel like a bunch of regular people are going to have to fight- justifiably- to stave off investors from compromising an historic landscape for which our city is named.

The proprietors’ success in getting a SUP would set a precedent (potentially allowing other structures to be built). I speculate that nobody will buy them, and then it will become apartments for transients that aren’t necessarily inclined to care about protecting the area. Then the area continues to lack a leadership group that is ready to come to the table with CHA CHC and UHCA and talk about a future that involves residents’ desires and needs.

It’s bothersome. I just don’t like what I see. That’s my .02.

Reply
jamie 09/09/2015 at 4:48 AM

Generally in support of this project sans the likely architect on this project, David Johannas. So many of his designs are Class A hideous. Hopefully CHA will have a positive influence on the design and materials selection for this project.

Reply
Michael Hild 09/09/2015 at 6:40 AM

That parcel is subject to significant flooding since it is at such a low grade and has no flood wall protection. I wonder what the potential financing bank will say and/or a potential buyer when their Mercedes is flooded in the parking garage below their million dollar condo. They will definitely need an evacuation plan for high water events.

IMHO the viewshed shouldn’t be as big of a concern for this project as it has for others (e.g., Echo Harbor), so long as the design is a good one.

Reply
Alex 09/09/2015 at 7:47 AM

This smells like a classic developer bait and switch. The high price tags on the units now are so they can wave a big tax impact in front of the city to get their SUP. My guess is at some point they’ll “realize” that nobody is lining up to buy million dollar condos there and the floor plans will shrink and/or they’ll need a few more stories.

Also the drawing included in the plans makes it look pretty hideous. I think their intent is to make it seem it’s made out of Legos.

Reply
jean mcdaniel 09/09/2015 at 8:25 AM

These developers want the approval and support of the CHA yet readly admit that, “all the details” have yet to be put forward and that “we won’t expand on our proposal”.

NO NO NO , HELL NO!

Reply
Lee 09/09/2015 at 10:10 AM

What bothers me with almost every proposal like this is the portion of the proposal or plan where the developer or architect inevitably discuss the form, massing, and proportion of the building as well as it’s “relationship” with existing buildings. While these are all worthwhile considerations I would much rather see a piece of quality architecture than a building clad in cheap or outright ugly prefab materials that is “OK” because it’s ‘sort of the same sort of shape’ as the building next door.

Without considering the details and styling of the building (which should either be exceptional/have great artistic and architectural merit OR have a high degree of historic accuracy/appropriateness relative to neighbors), this discussion of form and relationship is a nonsensical distraction from the fact that these buildings simply aren’t attractive.

Reply
ray 09/09/2015 at 11:03 AM

There’s a whole lot of wiggle room at the end of the proposal that makes me nervous since they are basically saying to CHA give us approval now, though we reserve the right to change the plan later:

“Accordingly, we ask for CHA approval of the conceptual plans as presented. Of course such approval will be subject to review of the SUP application and all of its detail. For our part, we make a commitment to adhere to the design concepts as presented and to develop the remaining
plans in a consistent manner. We have no intention of expanding or contracting our basic plan.

We commit to keeping an open dialogue with the CHA as the final plans are developed and to take CHA opinion into account at all stages of the development.

We ask that if we submit final plans that are substantially similar in design and detail to the information presented herein that we will have the approval of your association.”

Reply
formerlibbyhillresident 09/09/2015 at 11:46 AM

The base is pretty high up the hill to be on the 100 year flood plain. But if so, it’s no lower than all the surface and deck parking just below Tobacco Row. Having lost a new car from Gaston, trust me, most people will want to move their cars than deal with insurance.

As far as the rag on Johannas, he’s done some really interesting things. Some may not like it, but not everyone wants to see fake Colonial Williamsburg built everywhere.

Rocketts has sold some really expensive condos recently. Why not Richmond?

Reply
formerlibbyhillresident 09/09/2015 at 11:49 AM

Jason- the picture is taken along the drive of the main area of Libby Hill. Look closely, you are referring to tree tops on a lower terrace.

Reply
jamie 09/09/2015 at 1:06 PM

“a building clad in cheap or outright ugly prefab materials”…that’s the Johannas way…the way he knows how to design.

Please point out some quality projects he’s produced…

Reply
Alex 09/09/2015 at 1:14 PM

@17 – I’m assuming you have the data on Rockett’s sales? Can you tell how many condos they’ve sold in the range this project forecasts in the past year?

To answer your question, two reasons I think these might be a tougher sell:

1. Rockett’s has some green space and outdoor amenities for their residents to enjoy. It doesn’t appear this would offer much of that.

2. Being outside the city means the cost wouldn’t be apples to apples because the city has a higher tax rate.

Reply
ray 09/09/2015 at 1:33 PM

Page 3 says “The height is approximately the same as the Lucky Strike Apartment building across the street….”

But Lucky Strike is 6 stories highand this building at Canal will be 9.

A bit misleading I would say since word “approximately” shouldn’t encompass a 50% variable.

Reply
East Grace 09/09/2015 at 1:44 PM

Since when is Rockett’s not in the city of Richmond? And this building is right across Dock Street from the Capital Trail and a park.

Reply
Impressed 09/09/2015 at 3:10 PM

So many real estate development, architecture and sales experts on this site! I am learning so much reading all your professional opinions here!

Reply
Lee 09/09/2015 at 3:13 PM

@17-19: I’m not trying to single out this particular architect. I meant for my comments to be applicable to most of these large scale development proposals. As for “fake colonial Williamsburg” architecture: hardly what I’m advocating for either. We need more gesamtkunstwerk and less design by committee /lowest common denominator.

My main concern is that it seems like architects try to make something fit in to a historic neighborhood by copying the shape and form of the surrounding buildings but ignoring most of their other aesthetic qualities. This in turn includes an irrational conversation about and defense of these buildings which distracts from any real conversation about aesthetics/materials/quality/etc. Basically: Build a realistic/convincing “replica” tobacco-factory-converted-into loft apartments or build something else! I think an Italianate-Victorian facade would be perfectly appropriate, even if the building doesn’t particularly look like a cigarette factory – provided the facade is thoughtfully designed and includes both high quality materials and workmanship.

Something contextually jarring (art deco high rise architecture) could be an excellent addition to the neighborhood/skyline/streetscape, provided the design, materials, and workmanship are of sufficient quality.

I feel like taste/preference, quality, and contextual appropriateness are improperly delineated and improperly prioritized in these discussion. Regardless, I see no reason why a developer shouldn’t be held to incredibly high standards when they are building condos that they claim will sell for over 750,000 dollars AND are asking for permission to do something they would otherwise not be allowed to do.

Reply
Juliellen 09/09/2015 at 3:31 PM

@22 East Grace, the residential part of Rocketts Landing is in Henrico County.

Reply
Eric S. Huffstutler 09/09/2015 at 8:25 PM

Any time I see the Johannas name on a design, I cringe because of his nonconformist designs that should not be approved by the CAR. That said, what is the difference with his 11 story versus the other 15 story design?

I can embrace “modern” as long as it doesn’t look cheap… covered with ugly corrugated metal siding or mishmash prefab crap. Nineteenth century warehouses that surround this are “brick” and is what I would expect to see here. If done right, it can be creatively and artistically done as brick-masons did in that era. Even later Art Deco would be welcome if done authentically.

Reply
formerlibbyhillresident 09/10/2015 at 10:50 AM

@20,

Riverbank Terraces at Rocketts Landing. Starting price, $1.1 million.

http://rockettsvillage.com/homes/riverbank-terraces

If you can afford a million dollar home, a little more in taxes really isn’t that big a deal.

Reply
John M 09/22/2015 at 7:23 AM Reply

Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.