25 Responses to “echo harbor changes design”

1. posted by stephen at April 28, 2007 10:09 am [#]:
   

   The condos are still ugly and still block the view, which consists of more than the bend in the river. The bend is a part of a larger panorama. It’s humorous how much the developer keeps trying to play down the view, first claiming there’s nothing to look at but a treatment plant and then calling the view “so-called historic.” If there’s so little worth looking at, then why do they want to build condos there?

2. posted by Bill at April 29, 2007 1:04 pm [#]:
   

   looks like stephen has gotten to the nut of the issue.

3. posted by zack at April 29, 2007 1:23 pm [#]:
   

   He has but an empty lot does not employ people nor generates revenue for services. Maybe that’s the big picture.

4. posted by Bill at April 29, 2007 3:38 pm [#]:
   

   the big picture is that residential development does not employ people and it creates a greater damand for services that the revenue it generates

5. posted by john_m at April 29, 2007 3:45 pm [#]:
   

   At their presentation in October, the developers claimed that “… the project would lead to the development of 350 jobs, 115 those directly at the site and the rest in other businesses meeting the needs of the new residents.” There is supposed to be a gym of some kind, I think, and maybe a restaurant, which would maybe create new jobs or maybe just compete with other local businesses.

6. posted by archie bunker at April 30, 2007 8:41 am [#]:
   

   U.G.L.Y.

7. posted by Magneto at April 30, 2007 9:27 am [#]:
   

   This is at least a sign of the developer’s willingness to work with the City and residents. I’m sure responses to the quality of the design could also be addressed. It also incorporates Green Design, which would hopefully set a benchmark for future development in the City (if the building is constructed). I acknowledge that it may still obstruct some of the historic view and that we have an over-saturation of condos in the City, but I’d still call the design revision a success. If we keep working with the developer, then maybe something positive will develop for all parties involved.

8. posted by victoria at April 30, 2007 1:40 pm [#]:
   

   If Magneto says it’s a good thing, then it is. I trust his judgement about these things!

9. posted by Towlie at April 30, 2007 3:17 pm [#]:
   

   Da mn you magneto…. you may be my sworn enemy, but I will conceed the point here. Compromises are better than no compromises. The city has to grow to avoid stagnation, and sadly, sometiems views get sacrificed. So if we can accept that Church Hill residents are not Yurtle the Turtle and do not rule supreme over all the land we survey, and actually work with the developer, we might find that he is willing do build something we can live with.

10. posted by Cadeho at April 30, 2007 8:13 pm [#]:
    

    Amen to stephen. The developer’s not from Richmond is he? Just imagine if he decided to build giant towers at the feet of Church Hill along 21st St and Jefferson Hill Park. To me, it’s just the same.

11. posted by 100 word minimum at May 1, 2007 9:50 pm [#]:
    

    They’re still trying to appropriate our public amenity, the view. Or is that a so-called view of a water treatment plant? Unless the tops of those towers drop below the horizon, I don’t see much in the way of a compromise. Also, I don’t think their simulation gives a clear picture of the true visual impact of the towers.

    Richmond’s so-called need for growth does not equate to a need for an ugly condo development, given the oversaturated condo market and the fact that this development drops high density housing smack at a traffic bottleneck in a flood plain. Smart growth would be to develop the myriad vacant buildings and lots in Church Hill, Manchester, and throughout the city with appropriate housing, and to create a true public waterfront by extending Great Ship Lock Park to the east. Too bad smart growth has a lower profit margin.

    Also, it is important not to discount the value of an undeveloped flood plain. First of all, disaster recovery is much cheaper and faster. In the second place, a flood plain serves an important function during a flood, especially when there are flood control measures upstream. Flood walls create faster, deeper, and more damaging floodwaters by pushing all the water towards the middle of the river. The flood plain gives the water a place to spread out and slow down, reducing its power to create more damage further downstream.

    And again, we should keep our view. We can’t all have a grand, panoramic view from our houses, but we can all go down to the park and share the view with our neighbors. That’s how to develop a community.

12. posted by stephen at May 2, 2007 7:25 pm [#]:
    

    Thank you, 100 word minimum.

13. posted by Karl at May 3, 2007 9:26 am [#]:
    

    No design change can ignore that they are building on land that floods if the river level rises several feet. They cannot use the three floors for living. Also consider the expense to the city to build new roads to accommodate the new traffic. They will probably have to build an expressway down the center of the river.

14. posted by Heather at May 3, 2007 9:53 am [#]:
    

    The roads will need to be expanded anyway because of the traffic from the new developments in east Henrico. We’re already seeing the impact in Shockoe Bottom. That’s a major reason for the new parking regulations.

15. posted by john_m at May 15, 2007 11:57 am [#]:
    

    The RTD picks this up again today with Developers revise riverfront project.

16. posted by Ray at May 15, 2007 2:42 pm [#]:
    

    The quote by Keith West is priceless!

17. posted by Pat at May 15, 2007 4:12 pm [#]:
    

    Instead of building more unaffordable condos, how about waiting it out to see how Rocketts Landing does?I find it hard to believe that most people in this area can afford $400,000 for a one bedroom 900 sq ft condo! I think that there are very few that can. They just built more homes in Varina for $300,000 that no one is buying because that cannot afford.

18. posted by D.Chapman at May 20, 2007 8:56 pm [#]:
    

    Build the Condos! I grew up in the East End where ugly dilapidated factories and warehouses dominated the so called view of the River. Wasted brown acres should be developed to accomodate those of us that want to come back to city living. The River is our best asset, why not use it to the fullest?

19. posted by Coupe at May 21, 2007 6:46 pm [#]:
    

    The RTD editorial has come out in favor of the Echo Harbour Project. See yesterday’s RTD editoral section.

20. posted by 100 word minimum at May 21, 2007 8:23 pm [#]:
    

    Why not just buy one of the many unsold condos already built and sitting vacant? Why not develop the riverfront as a public space? Why not go to the park and enjoy the view? The view is not “so called”, it is beautiful.

21. posted by john_m at May 21, 2007 8:32 pm [#]:
    

    Here is that RTD editorial: High and Mighty (5/20/07)

22. posted by william at May 21, 2007 10:46 pm [#]:
    

    Build them…. they will surely be more attractive than what is presently there!
    And….they will provide desparately needed tax revenue for the city. Responsible development that will not be a drain on city services.

23. posted by Herb at May 22, 2007 8:20 am [#]:
    

    Empty condos do little for the city. The same investment schemes that drove the stock market day trader bubble a few years ago are now driving this trend to build condos on anything that is not moving. Heck, I am afraid to take a nap in the park, less someone build a condo on me. And, as several people have noted, these condos are not selling. They are remaining vacant, and being traded from holding company to holding company. The Echo Harbor people do not really care about this trend because they plan to dump the losses on another company as soon as the building is complete.

    Richmond needs to grow, but vacant buildings are not the key to this.

24. posted by Paul at May 23, 2007 9:31 am [#]:
    

    Please, can any one tell me when a city has been “saved” by the building of one building? And a private one to boot!
    Detroit pushed the Renaisance Center in 1978. We all know what a sucess story Detroit is!

25. posted by New Condos? Not in Church Hill’s backyard « Urban Richmond~ at December 17, 2007 10:26 am [#]:
    

    [...] (Not In My Backyard) regarding almost any new development.  Some vocal church hill residents have opposed Echo Harbor on the riverfront, a development below Jefferson Park on Marshall St., and challenged the density [...]

Share a Comment