25 Responses to “a historic view”

1. posted by mark at January 18, 2007 9:04 pm :
   

   A view that will only be enhanced by 2 beautiful, new towers next to the river. Progress Richmond! When do we start?

2. posted by Magneto at January 19, 2007 9:13 am :
   

   Does anyone know if there are images/renderings of what the viewshed would look like if Echo Harbor was built?

3. posted by john m at January 19, 2007 9:15 am :
   

   I asked that at one of the last meetings and the developers said no. They also refused to let me photograph the display image that they had at the meeting.

4. posted by stephen at January 19, 2007 9:28 am :
   

   Well, by looking at the panoramic view photo, it’s pretty easy to speculate that anything as tall as a tree is tall enough to block the view.

5. posted by Dave at January 19, 2007 9:47 am :
   

   If everyone is so interested in preserving this view, who approved the construction of the concrete plant silos (i.e. those 4 ugly white things in the middle of the picture)? Why doesn’t someone petition to remove those?

6. posted by Grrrr at January 19, 2007 9:52 am :
   

   Why dont we sharpen some sticks and go after the developers too…

7. posted by Magneto at January 19, 2007 10:43 am :
   

   If they keep the two towers concentrated on the western end of the property, they might (and I stress might) be able to mitigate disrupting the historic view.

   Plus, from what I heard, the towers were going to be sustainably designed with green roofs, which would help set a precedent for future green development in the City. Although, they would be standing in a floodplain….

8. posted by Chimbo at January 19, 2007 12:44 pm :
   

   The mayor wanted to buy those white silos but City Council wouldn’t support him.

9. posted by Celeste at January 19, 2007 2:48 pm :
   

   Magneto, a neighbor presented at one of the CHA meetings - he had taken a photo of the river much like this one, done some calculating as to the proposed towers’ height, and superimposed a transparency onto the photo with an outline of the towers as proposed. With the original proposition, the height of the tallest towers would stick up over the hill if you were standing in Libby Hill Park at or near the spot where this photo John has linked to here was taken.

   Someone else used Google earth and/or maps and wrote about it in the CHA Newsletter awhile back.

   I recently heard that the Echo Harbor folks had scaled back their proposal and were going to move the towers to the west, although I do not know how far west, nor how much land they own that would enable that move. And that might just be a rumor, I don’t really know it for sure.

10. posted by GKOAT at January 20, 2007 10:39 am :
    

    Historic Viewshed? Historic? Viewshed? Aww, Geez!

11. posted by j at January 21, 2007 1:03 am :
    

    I thought this was interesting: a picture of the river in Richmond-upon-Thames in England. It really shows how strikingly similar the view is from Libby Hill Park. As stupid as “viewshed” sounds, I would hate to see the view that got Richmond its name ruined by any buildings.

12. posted by john m at January 21, 2007 7:16 am :
    

    j — thanks for the photo!

13. posted by Jeff E. at January 22, 2007 10:10 am :
    

    In other words GKOAT, nothing is allowed to change because it will either alter a historic structure or site or at the very least change someone’s view of something. That’s an exaggeration but sometimes it really does seem to be the case. The “view” was one of the issues Church Hillers had with the stadium proposal in the Bottom as well if I remember correctly. I just hope a compromise can be found here. Downtown needs developments like this to help continue its revitalization and bring in more residents.

14. posted by mark at January 22, 2007 3:46 pm :
    

    Jeff E.–Well said!

15. posted by john m at January 24, 2007 7:03 am :
    

    from nbc12.com:
    

    This paper wouldn’t actually preserve the view. It will only celebrate its importance.

16. posted by Ham "Hambone" Johnson III at January 24, 2007 8:59 am :
    

    Sad as it is, Richmond needs to keep growing. That is just how society works. Cities either grow or stagnate. So, the solution is not to scream and whine about new developments, but instead to find a way to work pragmatically with potential developers to creat the most positive form of growth possible.

17. posted by john m at January 30, 2007 6:19 am :
    

    This was approved. richmond.com has a great follow-up on this.

18. posted by john m at February 6, 2007 6:42 am :
    

    RTD 2/6/07 Resolution hails James view

    But representatives of a Northern Virginia developer that plans to build two high-rise towers along the riverfront saw the resolution as a subtle attempt to block the project.”I’ve been telling everybody, this is an example of how a hill can be turned into a mountain,” McClellan said. “This is a very simple resolution celebrating a historic view that turned into something much more complicated. This is not a backdoor attempt to prevent any development from occurring.”

19. posted by john m at March 5, 2007 4:46 pm :
    

    In the most recent Moyor’s email newsletter, he mentioned that he plans to develop the City’s marina on Dock St. within the next three years. There was also a link to a video interview with the Mayor. In that interview, the Mayor emphasized the need to preserve the historic view from large scale development. He also acknowledged how he was impressed with the public support to preserve the view. (Here is the link to the video.)

20. posted by Old one at April 28, 2007 8:10 am :
    

    The problems that newcomers bring to Church Hill is that they know little of the historic significance, the ghosts who still inhabit many old places, the birdlife on the James, that the old European cities, plus those in other countries, control how they expand. This means that all plans like those offensive towers, the stadium in the bottom, etc, are to be put to a vote. Why? Because Richmond as it now is did not get done by Jeff E. and John M. and others who sound like there the whole damned place should be leveled so the can play ball constantly.

    Old

21. posted by john_m at April 28, 2007 1:22 pm :
    

    Old one — please reread the comments again, I’ve never said anything that should give you the impression that I either support or oppose this development. If so, can you quote me please? I’m not trying to be antagonistic, I just really don’t want to be misunderstood or misconstrued. Thanks.

22. posted by zack at April 28, 2007 4:17 pm :
    

    John, you’re really getting killed on the quotes today. You should watch what you say.

23. posted by Old one at April 28, 2007 5:28 pm :
    

    Sorry John M.

    These old eyes don’t read as well as they did back in 1890…or was that 1870…? I dunno… What I remember is the Civil War which we were’t supposed to call it, had just ended.My mom told me it was the “WAR between the States.”

    Really old one

24. posted by zack at April 28, 2007 5:40 pm :
    

    We call that “The War of Northern Aggression” here in Richmond.

25. posted by k ryan at June 28, 2007 9:26 am :
    

    The NBC today show has a promotion on “Know the most beautiful place in America” (link below)

    http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/19444493/

    This might be a good place to promote our view and the fact that it’s in danger of being developed.

Leave a Comment