Apartments, office space proposed for Jefferson Avenue

This is horrific, and completely out of place. There’s no way this gets greenlighted, rt?

This…. building. It’s god awful looking. Doesn’t fit the neighborhood at all

@1 and 2 James… I agree, this is totally out of place. The first thing that popped out was the greenhouse roof. The other is how fugly plain warehouse looking the building is.

The development “spitballed” fits much better architecturally than this “box” – no reason they can’t fit architecturally and still have a viable product.

(Comment deleted at the request of the person who made it)

But what about the rats who live there now? Where will they go?

Section3, page 44 of the Old & Historic Districts Handbook that C.A.R. follows states:

” Standards for New Construction: All new residential and commercial construction, whether in the form of additions or entire buildings, should be compatible with the historic features that characterize their setting and context. To protect the context of the surrounding historic district, new construction should reference the materials, features, size, scale, proportions, and massing of the existing historic building or buildings in its setting. ”

From what I see in the immediate vicinity are Victorian style homes. The only building near by that looks anywhere similar is the Manning Funeral Home rear section while even their façade is Colonial in style.

(Comment deleted at the request of the person who made it)

“Kleyman stresses that these images by Todd Dykshorn are definitely not the final renderings.”

I hope that’s true ’cause that is one UGLY building. HIDEOUS

I don’t exactly love the exterior, but have no issue with the density. I would also point out that in the future the two corner buildings which bookend this building will either be restored or redeveloped, which could make for a pretty awesome contrast between modern and historic. The comment I hear again and again from contractors, developers, and neighbors is that the architectural review process actually works to ensure that something like this gets built, rather than something which matches the surrounding neighborhood. CAR generally will not approve buildings which exhibit “faux historicism” while still demanding that materials and form be similar to the surroundings – ultimately ensuring architectural mediocrity. My understanding is that even if developers are willing to pay for historical accuracy, unless they are restoring an existing building, it isn’t allowed.

While I am personally not thrilled with the design, I AM thrilled that someone is going to develop that muddy vacant parcel. In doing so, it may create the impetus for the owner of the derelict convenience store to sell to someone who is willing to do something with the property.

I also recognize that these renderings are likely not what they intend to build designwise, so dumping on them is a pointless exercise. I hope they can find a design that meets CARs approval and move forward with bringing yet another block of the neighborhood back to life.

@26 Heaven forbid that we have offices near where we live. it will be the end of the neighborhood.

Obviously there is a market for it, or they would not be proposing it. I don’t think the fabric of the neighborhood would be ruined by an insurance agency, law firm, accountant or creative firm opening shop.

Daniil, true but restoring exiting houses is a bit different than building a new infill that is supposed to fit into its surroundings. Do you have other design ideas in mind that looks more 1880s than 1940s warehouse?

@35 Agreed. Heaven forbid we create a neighborhood where people can work, live, shop, and dine in the same place. That would just be terrible.

Who is selling all these houses? Everything that goes for sale in church hill immediately has a buyer. I can promise, as a Realtor in Richmond, that houses are selling as fast as humanly possible in Church Hill. The investors can’t get these houses/lots fast enough.

(Comment deleted at the request of the person who made it)

@John

I knew it was in litigation. Now the properties are boarded up again. Good thing in that those building were open to the elements and who knows what else. Bad news in that I figured if they did have to board them up, work would not be restarting anytime soon.

Way to go Matt & Daniil! Bringing life to this area and business has to be great for the area. Don’t let negative people bring you down. People are just reluctant to change. A garden seems safer.

PS Matt has been in the hill for over a decade now- definitely has skin in the game and the hills best interest. Just open your eyes and see all the renovations and new construction he has done in the last 10 years. Do you want a 2006 church hill or a 2016 church hill? Place has come a long way with him and people alike.

@54 – This was kind of my point in my earlier comment. If a building must “reference” historic architecture without appearing historic, how is it supposed to have any aesthetic or architectural identity of it’s own? I would rather see something jarringly different but aesthetically pleasing – something with it’s own aesthetic or design philosophy, be it a historic style or something unique – then something that just fades into the background.

I don’t think this proposal is bad, and I’m sure that Matt and Daniil will deliver a high quality product. While I do think there is room for improvement, I think the CAR guidelines/process are probably what need to change.

I’m OK with the massing. I think the density is fine for this parcel. The facade design could use some improvement to bring it to a more human scale. Mainly the facade needs more detail and dimension/depth. I think that could be accomplished in part by overhauling the looks of the windows. The windows in the rendering appear to be those awful horizontal sliders. What if instead the building had windows more like the typical classic brick Church Hill rowhome has? Double hung with thick wood trim…

I don’t have complaint with the density or general appearance, but I do worry about how this design interacts at street level on M Street and 24th Street. These essentially feel like back walls, especially the wall on 24th Street with the auto entrance. A long brick wall with a curb cut for cars but nothing on a pedestrian scale is out of place around here more than a 3 story building.

I try to think of larger buildings in the area for comparison. The line of new houses east of Millie’s are a connected masonry wall that offer clues for a better street facade. Even the newer buildings coming up Broad towards 21st present to the sidewalk better. The line of storefronts that used to sit where Patrick Henry Park is now are maybe the best example of what a full commercial block should feel like in this specific neighborhood setting.

@60

Eric, 18th and Main does just fine. Pizza Place has been there forever. Southern Kitchen seems to do quite well from what I can see as I drive by. Sweet Tea’s did well too. I know they had a lot of problems with the building’s maintenance and kept closing for repairs before moving over to 17th–which also gave them a larger space. Assuming the building’s internal problems are under control, there is no reason a restaurant cannot succeed in that space. Sweet Tea’s did well there. Perhaps there’s no market in that area for Jamaican food like Kool Runnings was offering, or maybe the place just wasn’t that great. I’m not a huge fan of Jamaican food so I never went in.

We have been making pretty significant redesigns of this project and will have some updated (not final) plans to show at the Union Hill Civic Association meeting tomorrow night (Wednesday April 13th) at 7pm at the Community Resource Center. Anyone interested is welcome.