Comments on: Oakwood Heights at CAR #2

By: Laura Daab

Laura Daab — Sat, 26 Jan 2008 01:55:27 +0000

“Fourth option.” That’s what I meant by revising her plan and revisiting the CAR.

By: Neighbor

Neighbor — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 22:08:01 +0000

My comments are absolutely appropriate. They are just on a different side from you. That area is private property and not a national park. I think it’s important to establish that there is not a universally held view in this neighborhood that this property is some sort of pristine wilderness that must be preserved at any cost. I don’t think that, some other people don’t think that, but anyone who challenges that view is harpooned here.

As to my landfill point – it is commonly believed that those areas on that side of the Hill are built-up landfill, probably from river dredging. I cannot recall my specific source – I invite you to correct me and will certainly stand correctd if wrong. Whether I am right on that detail or not, there is nothing so natural and pristine about that area such as to chain one’s self to the trees there before the bulldozers come in.

For the record, I’m not disagreeing that this development could be challenged on the basis of compatabilty with the existing structures. I just think the comments were deviating far afield from that reasonable view.

By: Crystal

Crystal — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 21:49:08 +0000

Hmmm, she doesn’t own the property along Gillies Creek you say? Interesting considering she plans to put in a heavy concrete retaining wall on that side not to mention will have to utilize the land in order to build said wall.

Email me, please, at crystalball30@gmail.com so we can check into this. Thanks Bill!

And you’re right about the 4th option: we will concede to a house or 4, but not 33 *condos*.

By: Bill Hartsock

Bill Hartsock — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 20:21:38 +0000

There is a fourth and better option: she can build on her properties in a manner compatible with the neighborhood and in keeping with the character of the architecture. My records show that her company only owns a few lots on Marshall and Broad, but not the hillside facing Gillies Creek. If anyone needs details, I can give you the addresses, or you can access them on the City website.

By: Laura Daab

Laura Daab — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 19:08:46 +0000

I believe there is still an opportunity for Freund & Co. to return to the CAR with revised, reworked design/plans. Appealing to City Council is also an option as Crystal indicated. The third option is for her to walk away/do nothing/sell.

By: K

Fri, 25 Jan 2008 18:51:53 +0000

Hey Neighbor,

Get your facts straight. It’s obnoxious and ill-informed to say that we have a ‘whatever you are for I’m against attitude’. Obviously you don’t have a clue about what you are talking about. And Lori, the Yellowstone comment was completely inappropriate.

Neighbor – so what facts are you basing your assertion that this site was previously a landfill? Or is that just b/s too?

By: Crystal

Crystal — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 14:37:21 +0000

CAR already said nay to the entire project as it stands so there is no need for ‘neighbor’ to attend the meeting. However, perhaps s/he might be interested to know the developers can now take their case to the City Council.

By: EDS

EDS — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 01:33:05 +0000

Neighbor , If you feel that strongly for the project please come to the CAR meeting and speak for the development.

By: lori

lori — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 20:53:51 +0000

I almost let this lie, Neighbor, but I’ll take your point to heart that hives are natural and houses are natural in that they are both made of materials found in nature and are both dwellings. My objection is in the destruction of the trees and a particular hive within it that I have grown to appreciate. And back to the CAR points, I also object to the current natural dwelling at 3626 E. Broad being moved as well. Existing Hive doesn’t move and existing house doesn’t move. I’m good with that.
I apologize if I mistook the Yellowstone comment for sarcasm …maybe just exaggeration then? And so an anonymous counterpoint to what you consider unreasonable it is … an agreement to disagree.

By: Neighbor

Neighbor — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 19:56:28 +0000

I’m glad you mentioned honeybee hives, lori. If honeybee hives (or ant hills or termite mounds) are natural, houses (and their accompanying metal and concrete) are too.

I’m not being sarcastic at all. I am strongly disagreeing with your position. I think your (apparently popular) points are unreasonable and I should be able to make a counterpoint anonymously.

By: lori

lori — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 18:54:23 +0000

Thanks K and EcoGirl — it feels like a lot of ‘green’ haze was being thrown in some of the presentations — and I tend to be wary of presentations that appear to contradict themselves (green but dense?, certification but no details.., etc.). I really appreciate the insight and it’s starting to make a bit more sense…
And Howdy “Neighbor” — trees are natural habitat, honey bee hives are natural, no one ever claimed Yellowstone — trees naturally have a role in your breathing process – concrete and metal don’t. Once a landfill? Not necessariy always a landfill. I suppose it’s okay for you to poke fun at me and exaggerate natural habitat if it makes you feel better. Whatever works for you. I was asking a question based on a deeply felt concern. Thanks for the comeback…. And which neighbor are you? Neighbor seems a tad bit anonymous and easy to use if you’re going to go sarcastic. Own your sarcasm.

By: EcoGirl

EcoGirl — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 17:10:43 +0000

woops! sorry for the double post!!!

By: EcoGirl

EcoGirl — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 17:10:12 +0000

the LEED rating system is a complex grouping of multiple ‘green’ or ‘sustainable’ elements. these range from water efficiency and low energy consumption to renewable materials, brown field rehabilitation, etc. The HUGE problem, however, is that it is easily possible to achieve LEED Certification without considering much of the natural habitat at all! let alone the historic context. there are basic site development requirements that must be met- but in general, the way LEED works is that you have to get a cumulative total number of points, in any category, in order to become certified. this means they could bulk up on points from energy efficiency, recycled materials, etc… and practically ignore sustainable site strategies (minus the core pre-requisites, of course…).
Don’t get the wool pulled over your eyes by LEED!!!! it can be a great system, but developers may use these fancy terms to confuse the average community member- and in the end, even if the claim in the beginning that the are attempting LEED Certification, there is no legal way to hold them to it. once they get approval, they could easily ditch that strategy (as the certification process, not the strategies, is rather costly)- and that would take away from maggie’s bottom line- and we know how developers feel about that!

do your research people! don’t fall for fancy terms, because they may just be a way to distract you from the real issues here: this development is way out of scale and density for this neighborhood, and although i am a full supporter of modern design- the complete ‘cold-shoulder’ approach to the character of the surrounding context is inexcusable!
Cheers

By: EcoGirl

EcoGirl — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 17:08:11 +0000

do your research people! don’t fall for fancy terms, because they may just be a way to distract you from the real issues here: this development is way out of scale and density for this neighborhood, and although i am a full supporter of mordern design- the complete ‘cold-shoulder’ approach to the character of the surrounding context is inexcusable!
Cheers

By: K

Thu, 24 Jan 2008 14:32:57 +0000

Lori,

There are different levels of LEED certification – she’s not going for the highest level (Platinum). Platinum LEED certified developments (like the CBF building in Annapolis) do consider minimizing disturbance to the site. For example, the CBF building was built on the foot print of an old hotel and does not sprawl all over the site.

With respect to the Oakwood Heights Condo, that would mean development that followed the historic development pattern in the neighborhood – this would preserve all of the huge old oak trees and retain greenspace and traffic flow associated with the neighborhood’s historic development pattern.

By: john_m

john_m — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 22:42:59 +0000

(An earlier neighborhood project going for LEED certification.)

By: Neighbor

Neighbor — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 22:24:08 +0000

“Natural Habitat”? This isn’t Yellowstone – and structures have existed within some of this footprint in living memory. Other parts of it are said to have once been landfill.

This whole matter seems very “Whatever You’re For, I’m Against”. Granted, the developer needs to communicate better.

By: lori

lori — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 22:10:58 +0000

Thanks! I would like to look into this LEED because it seems a bit off if it also rewards killing off natural habitat in order to introduce these buildings onto a site…. interesting.

By: Brad

Brad — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 21:35:36 +0000

They said the building would be the first LEED certified multi-family building in Richmond. LEED certification is a creation of the U.S Green Building Council (www.usgbc.org). LEED certification should be a goal for all new development throughout the City. I wish we had heard more about this at the CHA meeting. A quick description of LEED certification from the USGBC website is as follows:
“LEED is the nationally accepted benchmark for the design, construction and operation of high performance green buildings. LEED gives building owners and operators the tools they need to have an immediate and measurable impact on their buildingsâ€™ performance. LEED promotes a whole-building approach to sustainability by recognizing performance in five key areas of human and environmental health: sustainable site development, water savings, energy efficiency, materials selection and indoor environmental quality.”

By: Jim

Jim — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 21:34:55 +0000

The CAR was concerned with the “color of the pole” that was to hold the new sign for the Memorial Child Guidance Clinic? Give me a break!!

By: lori

lori — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 21:11:14 +0000

Does anyone recall the ‘Green designation’ that Fulton Hill claims to have gotten on this project? Was it ‘Green League’? Green Lead? and anyone know who gives that designation? I never heard it clearly — I believe it was stated at both the CHA meeting last week and CAR last night …. Thanks in advance if you know!!

By: Chimbo

Chimbo — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 14:23:20 +0000

Perhaps the developer should shoot for a modest proposal with half the number of units built into a high quality setting.

And not lie or mislead about the pre-existing infrastructure.

By: Laura Daab

Laura Daab — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 02:44:40 +0000

Oops, never mind about my previous post. Didn’t see #2 installment.