Comments on: echo harbor changes design

By: New Condos? Not in Church Hill’s backyard « Urban Richmond~

New Condos? Not in Church Hill’s backyard « Urban Richmond~ — Mon, 17 Dec 2007 15:26:02 +0000

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

By: Paul

Paul — Wed, 23 May 2007 13:31:04 +0000

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!

By: Herb

Herb — Tue, 22 May 2007 12:20:07 +0000

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.

By: william

william — Tue, 22 May 2007 02:46:29 +0000

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.

By: john_m

john_m — Tue, 22 May 2007 00:32:46 +0000

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

By: 100 word minimum

100 word minimum — Tue, 22 May 2007 00:23:20 +0000

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.

By: Coupe

Coupe — Mon, 21 May 2007 22:46:02 +0000

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

By: D.Chapman

D.Chapman — Mon, 21 May 2007 00:56:00 +0000

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?

By: Pat

Pat — Tue, 15 May 2007 20:12:03 +0000

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.

By: Ray

Ray — Tue, 15 May 2007 18:42:43 +0000

The quote by Keith West is priceless!

By: john_m

john_m — Tue, 15 May 2007 15:57:08 +0000

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

By: Heather

Heather — Thu, 03 May 2007 13:53:40 +0000

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.

By: Karl

Karl — Thu, 03 May 2007 13:26:40 +0000

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.

By: stephen

stephen — Wed, 02 May 2007 23:25:22 +0000

Thank you, 100 word minimum.

By: 100 word minimum

100 word minimum — Wed, 02 May 2007 01:50:40 +0000

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.

By: Cadeho

Cadeho — Tue, 01 May 2007 00:13:43 +0000

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.

By: Towlie

Towlie — Mon, 30 Apr 2007 19:17:53 +0000

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.

By: victoria

victoria — Mon, 30 Apr 2007 17:40:39 +0000

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

By: Magneto

Magneto — Mon, 30 Apr 2007 13:27:39 +0000

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.

By: archie bunker

archie bunker — Mon, 30 Apr 2007 12:41:35 +0000

U.G.L.Y.

By: john_m

john_m — Sun, 29 Apr 2007 19:45:50 +0000

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.

By: Bill

Bill — Sun, 29 Apr 2007 19:38:15 +0000

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

By: zack

zack — Sun, 29 Apr 2007 17:23:57 +0000

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

By: Bill

Bill — Sun, 29 Apr 2007 17:04:46 +0000

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

By: stephen

stephen — Sat, 28 Apr 2007 14:09:56 +0000

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?