48 Responses to “new plans for Oakwood Heights”

1. posted by Chewbacca at August 7, 2008 3:21 pm :
   

   My understanding is that these plans do nothing to address the concerns about density… they still cram way too many units in a small space.

   Which will create an overcrowded area, driving away the better tennants, rents will drop dramatically in order to ensure full rental, and it will become section 8 housing within 5 years.

2. posted by hillkid at August 7, 2008 3:55 pm :
   

   A much as I dislike the density of this project also, Fulton Properties has the legal right to build the proposed amount of units.

   Just because you legally can do something still doesn’t necessarily make it a good thing for the community.

   There are those that would argue that the CAR can have a say on density, but they won’t and don’t. Fulton Hill Properties will get the density that they want.

   It would be more productive to focus on the design aspects of the project, and make sure that it is complementary to it’s surroundings, and that the traffic flow will be the best that it can be under the circumstances.

3. posted by Magneto at August 7, 2008 3:58 pm :
   

   Excuse me, but what exactly do you mean by “better tenants?” Section 8 housing - and all rental housing for that matter - should not always be viewed as such a negative. Please keep your comments about such a proposed development more on the content/design of the development (such as your comment about density) and not on the future residents who may or may not even choose to live there.

   Furthermore, one way we’re going to get a more sophisticated transportation system (light rail, bus rapid transit, etc.) in the region is by allowing for greater density, or at least that’s how the Richmond Regional Planning Commission has structured their demand model: (HERE) The report is a little out-dated, but I recall reading a more recent one that covered such information.

4. posted by SEW at August 7, 2008 4:07 pm :
   

   Magneto, please…all you have to do is look at almost all other section 8 housing in the area and you’ll undertand what Chewbacca means. Simply put, section 8 housing is a negative. Plain, period, simple. If not, please give an example where section 8 housing did something positive for an area. Added to nearby home values? Doubt it. Decreased crime in the area? Doubt it… Lets try to be realistic here!

5. posted by Magneto at August 7, 2008 4:33 pm :
   

   SEW, here is your list: http://www.vcu.edu/vcoa/abuse/localresources/housing_options.pdf I would consider that many of these housing developments do lots of positive things, such as providing shelter and decent affordable housing for the poor, elderly, and disabled. Some of these are managed by the Better Housing Coalition, which has done a phenomenal job with providing affordable housing options in Church Hill and all over Richmond through creative, infill, eco-friendly development. Here is an example of one of their Section 8 developments: http://www.greencommunitiesonline.org/projects/profiles/randolph_place.pdf Yes, there are issues associated with some of the Section 8 housing in the area, but one reason for that is because we’ve been reluctant to embrace and accept more dispersed, multi-family, affordable housing in our own back yards, such as the case at hand with Oakwood Heights, which I don’t think has even mentioned Section 8 housing as an option. As a result, the Section 8 housing becomes concentrated in certain areas of the City.

6. posted by Shannon at August 7, 2008 4:43 pm :
   

   Section 8 guidelines state that landlords have the right to interview any potential tenants, and decide to do business with them or not. I have met lots of Section-8-qualified people who are extremely decent folks.

   Negative associations with Section 8 should be directed toward the landlords who don’t care about the character of the people that they let rent, so long as they get that direct deposit. This is not the fault of the program. It’s the fault of landlords. It should be noted, though - for many people, owning investment property that they rent to others is about more than just a check. Many of these landlords participate with Section 8, and you wouldn’t even know it, because the tenants keep their homes so cute.

   Any negative experience that you have should also be reported to Section 8. The guidelines are strict, and the system does not mind pulling the voucher if given a reason – not one bit. Seen that happen, too.

   Re: Fulton Hill - look at the other projects that they have done. Their work is well crafted and thoughtful. Whether or not you agree with the condos, you pretty much have to give it to them for the quality they are capable of achieving.

   I really doubt that Fulton Hill will be trying to rent out condos to just anyone so that they can get a Section 8, government check. That’s just not them.

7. posted by Bill Hartsock at August 7, 2008 5:03 pm :
   

   I agree with Shannon. I have represented Section 8 landlords who cared about their properties and there was not a problem. Also, RRHA does yearly inspections of Section 8 dwellings and requires landlords to maintain their properties, or their monthly payments are held up. Keep in mind, also, if we want to see the elimintion of the public housing projects and an assimilation of the residents into the community (elimination of the crime ghettos)then the Section 8 program is a step in the right direction.

8. posted by neighhbor at August 7, 2008 5:09 pm :
   

   I appears Chewbacca does not know what Section 8 housing is, how property comes to be Section 8 housing, or what a “condo” is.

9. posted by Ry at August 7, 2008 6:37 pm :
   

   Bravo Magneto, Shannon, and Bill. All excellent points and I am glad to see people combating such a stereotypical NIMBY attitude toward Section 8 residents. I particularly agree that the landlords are the ones who usually give Section 8 a bad name.

   Also, just FYI @ neighbor - there is a program within Section 8 that allows Section 8 payments for homeownership.

10. posted by Fruit Bat at August 7, 2008 10:54 pm :
    

    I’m sorry, but I have to agree with SEW on this one. Section 8 sucks. That doesn’t mean that the PEOPLE who live in secton 8 automatically suck, but as a general rule, wherever there is section 8 there are depressed home values and higher crime rates. Get real indeed. I’ll add that BHC has in fact done a nice job with many of their projects, but most of those ultimately involved SELLING the parcel to a responsible homeowner - not so much section 8 type dealio-yo.

11. posted by Fruit Bat at August 7, 2008 10:55 pm :
    

    Where are these proposed condos going in, anyway?

12. posted by Chewie at August 8, 2008 8:13 am :
    

    Ok, I mis spoke…perhaps I should have just said they would rather rapidly degenerate into slummy housing…. is that better. Because I can all but guarantee that is what is going to happen.

    The city should NEVER give these blanket zoning exemptions because it removes any and all controls. This property could be turned into a megaWall Mart too, the way the freakin zoning is set up.

13. posted by john_m at August 8, 2008 8:18 am :
    

    The city should NEVER give these blanket zoning exemptions because it removes any and all controls.

    It is my understanding that the existing zoning on the site is a legacy of zoning decisions from an earlier time, rather than an exemption. Many of the areas that were zoned to allow this kind of density have or are being rezoned away from this as well.

    Part of the adverse reaction up here to high-density may be due to the physical examples of higher density developments (private and public) all around us - Midlo Apartments, Jefferson Townhomes, Mosby, Fairfield, Creighton… On the other hand, I don’t think that the neighborhood is in danger of the Pohlig Building or Nolde becoming a low-rent drain on the neighborhood and it looks like FHP is going for something nicer than either of those projects.

14. posted by JES at August 8, 2008 8:28 am :
    

    Instead of coming to conclusions and then bitching about said conclusions, why don’t we all just go to the open house on August 20th.

    Then, perhaps we can all form informed, intelligent opinions about this matter and discuss it in an informed, intelligent way instead of just assuming that the project will be a failure.

    If no one in the community gets behind the project, it will certainly become a failure. However, if we all support it, then maybe it will, at least, have a chance at success and give us all one more thing that we love about our neighborhood.

15. posted by john_m at August 8, 2008 8:48 am :
    

    Where are these proposed condos going in, anyway?

    At the very east end of Broad Street, where it dead ends.

16. posted by SEW at August 8, 2008 8:54 am :
    

    Hummm, I have to ask, how many of you folks that bitched about my earlier post (#4) would or do actually live in public or section 8 housing? I doubt any of you do. I sure as hell don’t want to live in or near it. Since you all are so supportive of these types of housing, then why don’t you live there? Would the crime rate be preventative or would it be the depressed home values? Come on guys, I’m simply stating the truth here…there may be exceptions to this but I would bet they are very few and far between. I have live din Richmond all my life and have seen this happen over and over again. Not sure what the area is called over by RIR/Fairgrounds but that would be a prime example of what I’m (also Chewie and Fruit Bat) talking about. These places were built some time ago and within perhaps the past 10 years have turned into nasty places. Riddled with crime, drugs, prostitution? Yes! Depreciated home/land values? Yes! Do ya’ll want to see this in your back yards? I doubt it. I don’t! Whether the degeneration of these areas is caused by the landlords or the tenants is not the issue. The issue is the degeneration itself. With that degeneration comes depressed home values, crime, and other unacceptable behavior. As John pointed out we have a number of examples of this in Midlo Apartments, Jefferson Townhomes, Mosby, Fairfield, and Creighton. How much more of this do we need in our area?

17. posted by neighhbor at August 8, 2008 9:01 am :
    

    If only for the sake of accuracy, I think it should be established that based on what FHP has said in the past, this condo development is NOT a Section 8 project. This sidebar on section 8 could be misleading to the casual reader.

18. posted by Shannon at August 8, 2008 9:13 am :
    

    Re #16, I live about one block away from Woodcroft. This apartment complex IS in my back yard. And yeah, SEW - I’d rather live there than be homeless. And so would you if it came down to it. Your “if you love it so much, then go live there!” comment almost made me spit out my coffee from laughing. Thanks for that. First laugh of the day is always good.

    In large scale housing – the questions of whether the degeneration is facilitated by the landlords or the tenants IS the exact issue. When you get to the crux of who is accountable for circumstances that you take issue with, you are no longer armchair-whining. Big difference between that, and seeking a solution – or at least seeking to understand the problem that you have with it.

    Besides - none of this has anything to do with Oakwood Heights. By definition, condos are for sale, not rent. And again, educate yourself - look at the other projects that FHP has done - good stuff.

    Your broad, sweeping generalizations are more than a bit Chicken Little, and really just don’t apply in this case.

19. posted by Bob at August 8, 2008 9:13 am :
    

    It’ not Section 8 housing, and I’m sure FHP’s intent is to NOT be Section 8. (want to make as much $$ as they can). But I believe what SEW,Chewie, and others are also getting at is - Richmond is already saturated with Condos and apts. How many Condos and apts. can Richmond and CH withstand? A lot of the Condos already built are sitting empty, which can lead to desperation… Also, keep in mind the Real Estate market and economy.

20. posted by john_m at August 8, 2008 9:21 am :
    

    Besides - none of this has anything to do with Oakwood Heights. By definition, condos are for sale, not rent

    When asked, FHP has refused to say that they will not rent the units if they do not sell (which has happened at Nolde)

21. posted by Shannon at August 8, 2008 9:50 am :
    

    Re #20: Sure John - and that is any owner’s prerogative. Still, optimally they would be sold - wouldn’t you think?

    As well, I humbly believe that part of what happened at Nolde is that they needed to make too much from each unit, simply because the construction was initiated when there was a different sales-market in operation. They spent more money, thinking that they would be able to make more money. This surely oversimplifies, but I think is/was a big factor.

    Now, with the additional inventory that we have, and the increased time that most properties are spending on the market being a matter of course, FHP would be foolish to over-build. This doesn’t mean that properties are not selling; they are. Especially in our market. This also doesn’t mean that the project can’t be beautiful and distinctive. From what I understand, there are features that are slated to be part of this project that are cutting edge and notable.

    If the community is so concerned about having rentals in their back yard, so to speak, here might be a good, fact-based question for FHP at the meeting: “Where are your studies that show that there is actually a market for this? Show us how you know that there is a buyer-client base for this project…” One would think that this information would be included in FHP’s business plan for Oakwood as a matter of course. Don’t they, themselves, need this info to cover their own tails prior to even breaking ground?

    Why not ask them to share it?

22. posted by CHnewbie at August 8, 2008 10:07 am :
    

    i think they refused to give this info at a CHA meeting once, so good luck getting it.

23. posted by Shannon at August 8, 2008 10:36 am :
    

    I would think that this info would be readily shared. I’d be interested to know why they wouldn’t.

    Was it because they didn’t have it with them, or were they simply of the tone that it was none of the public’s business?

24. posted by EDS at August 8, 2008 10:48 am :
    

    I thought all the other project FHP has done involved rehabitating exsisting properties not building from bottom up. So comparing past jobs to this new project is a little like comparing apples to oranges.

25. posted by Chewie at August 8, 2008 10:58 am :
    

    This city is already glutted with lofts that are going unrented and unsold. This is because investors can manipulate the system and get grants and tax credits. What happens to unsold and unrented places? they eventually go downhill and desperate measures have to be taken to keep the new owners (the developers try to dump the finished projects) struggle to keep them rented. Maintence slips. the properties slide into disrepair.

    Sadly, I have seen my uncle build supposedly luxury condos in another city that are now crappy apartments. So, I have an inkling of what I am talking.

    A quick perusal of the land at the site will quickly show anyone that 30 plus units are far too many to fit into this area. An area lage enough to hold 4 houses. Perhaps 5. That means that each house sized lot will accomodate as many as 6 condos.

    No matter how nice the facade is, this will be a crowded development.

26. posted by Shannon at August 8, 2008 11:09 am :
    

    This is an interesting conversation, and I find myself unable to resist coming back here for the discussion.

    I want to make it clear that I do not work for FHP, although I have done some business with them and seen a good bit of their reps’ work – from the distant past (about 15 years ago) to present. I have, without exception, found them to possess an extremely conscientious philosophy about quality, an appreciation for the historic, and a professionalism that shows through in their projects. Their philosophy and quality of craftsmanship is what I am referring to.

    So, no. It is not comparing apples to oranges, at all. It is talking about the way an entity does business and the product that they deliver.

    Plus, if one can restore, one can certainly build from new. It is the converse that is sometimes in question.

27. posted by elphaba at August 9, 2008 12:24 pm :
    

    i love it when people make blanket classist statements and then try to defend themselves by saying ‘come on guys, i’m simply stating the truth here.’ thats the biggest load of crap i’ve ever heard.

    JES has a great point. none of this has happened, and they have an open house on august 20th, so i hope to see all the people who are assuming that this project will turn into ‘the projects’ within five years there.

    also, i agree with john_m that “On the other hand, I don’t think that the neighborhood is in danger of the Pohlig Building or Nolde becoming a low-rent drain on the neighborhood and it looks like FHP is going for something nicer than either of those projects.” good point. seriously.
    however a part of me would like to see the FHP be a bit less expensive than those since they are way out of reach for someone like me (who currently lives across from section 8 housing -GASP!!)

28. posted by hillkid at August 9, 2008 1:41 pm :
    

    I was at the CHA meeting where FHP presented and they very clearly said that they are open to renting if they cannot sell. What’s wrong with that? They have a business to run and can’t leave properties sitting empty. Almost every condo project in the city has had to do this. At the same time, I don’t think that is a downer. We were renters for 6 years on the hill before we bought, and we have lots of good renters who live around us.

29. posted by Di at August 9, 2008 8:35 pm :
    

    First… the meeting on the 20th is intended for those in support of this project. I would imagine there are other chances for those against to argue their points of view. It’s not a meeting just a look see.(I don’t work for FHP either)

    Secondly … as a rental property owner (who knows many others both large and small) section 8 is a nightmare. Worst of all if you do section 8 and have a problem with a tenant it’s diffucult to impossible to get rid of them. The landlord is not always the bad guy/girl.

30. posted by Shannon at August 9, 2008 9:16 pm :
    

    Re: 29 - It is always difficult to remove tenants, Section 8 or not. That is the reason for the encouragement to screen your tenants fully.

31. posted by Laura Daab at August 9, 2008 9:56 pm :
    

    #29:

    “…section 8 is a nightmare.” You probably feel that way because they require property owners to actually take care of their properties. My former neighbor, Shanta almost lost her life and the lives of her children because she was living in non-Section 8 low income housing that had faulty wiring and caught fire.

    I wish there was more low income housing that was Section 8.

    And, yes, Shannon is right. It is hard to evict a renter no matter what, as it should be.

32. posted by Crystal at August 9, 2008 11:42 pm :
    

    FHP has not been forthcoming of any information and it has had to be dragged out of them.

    Currently they are on their 3rd developer who have actually given the best design for the space thus far. However, those of us who would have this in their backyards don’t appreciate the density and the issues with traffic, safety and parking it would incur.

    While the buildings will look a lot more like those already existing with a bit of modern flair, they are also still off the mark a bit. However, I will state again that these plans are much better than the two previous versions (and definitely the first). We have a copy of the drawings in our dining room if anyone would like to take a peak.

33. posted by Crystal at August 9, 2008 11:46 pm :
    

    I almost forgot: the property is currently zoned R63 which is multi-family and was listed as such back in the 60s I believe when the city had a different idea of where they wanted to master plan to go. Now they are about to rezone the parcel to R17 which, if I remember correctly, allows for homes that share a common wall as well as single family homes, but not 33 condos. It is my understanding that FHP is pushing this now because once the property is rezoned, they will only be able to build houses, not high density buildings that, if rented, means lots of people who don’t care about where they lay their head at night or the surrounding area (like my backyard) will be living too close for comfort.

34. posted by Shannon at August 10, 2008 9:00 am :
    

    Crystal - do we know where those folks are supposedly going to be parking? At one point, my understanding was that there would be a designated area that was on the other side of the hill, East, at the bottom. There was going to be some way - can’t remember exactly what it was - to get to the top of the crest, to the dwellings. I think I am rememberbering this correctly, but may be off…

35. posted by john_m at August 10, 2008 9:04 am :
    

    Parking has been part of the development, under the structures and off of Broad and Marshall.

36. posted by Shannon at August 10, 2008 9:19 am :
    

    Maybe I dreamed, then, that the parking was slated to be in that old trailer park area. (Yeah, I dream about some pretty ridiculous stuff, for sure. :))

37. posted by john_m at August 10, 2008 9:22 am :
    

    That property came up, but the FHC rep stated that they had no connection to it, did not own it.

38. posted by Di at August 10, 2008 10:43 am :
    

    Laura Judging by your statement you don’t know anything about section 8 first hand. You assume landlords are not decent people who care about the product they offer. It’s a lousy thing to pass judgement on all landlords due to a few poor ones. Aside from your having had one rental you have little to no knowlegde of the business. I know 100’s of rental property owners who offer fine homes and abide by landlord tenant law to the letter. You of all people should know better then to pass judgement.

39. posted by jami at August 10, 2008 11:10 am :
    

    Why does the goverment have to offer housing? There should be enough organizations to help without dragging the goverment into the problem. My taxes are almost 3,000 a year for my city of Richmond house, 1,500 a year for my Chesterfield residence. Richmond house assesed at 200,000 while the Chesterfield house is assesed just a little bit less. Could it be if you live in the city you have to subsidize all the non-taxpayers?

    Richmond needs to get past the entitlement mentality that it is choking on.

40. posted by Juliellen at August 10, 2008 11:25 am :
    

    As a current renter in Church Hill who just bought a house in Fulton, I am looking forward to going to the August 20 meeting and learning about FHP’s development plans for Oakwood Heights.

41. posted by Kristen at August 10, 2008 10:16 pm :
    

    Does anyone know of a block in Chimborazo or Church Hill Historic area that has a road through the middle of the block as the primary access to a house? Just curious - that is what this development is proposing.

42. posted by neighhbor at August 11, 2008 9:34 am :
    

    Post 41 - Yes. There is an example in the upper 30s off of Marshall.

43. posted by Laura Daab at August 11, 2008 2:40 pm :
    

    Di:

    Were in my comment did I say that all landlords are terrible? Just because you don’t like Section 8 doesn’t mean that I don’t know anything about it.

    How do you know Jim and I only have had one rental property. You don’t know me, and if you think you do, you’re wrong.

    You speak as if you know me personally, so I think I’ve figured out who you are also, Diana, considering that you challenge or complain about everything I comment on.

    By the way, I know folks who have rented from you and they tell me that you were a nightmare.

    O.K., now let’s let it go because we both know why we should. It’s pathetic that you feel the need to come on anonymously and perpetuate a long ago (and, by now should be forgotten) grudge.

44. posted by eds at August 11, 2008 2:53 pm :
    

    post 42 are you thinking of 35th St which doesn’t go all the way though to Broad St.

45. posted by Crystal at August 11, 2008 4:07 pm :
    

    If so, that’s not an alley but an actual part of the street. The rest around here have alleys and people who live in those house access them to park and that’s it. They are by no means a main thoroughfare.

46. posted by Laura Daab at August 13, 2008 4:19 pm :
    

    The Oakwood Heights condo project is coming before the CAR for review at their meeting later this month.

47. posted by Kristen at August 14, 2008 12:25 pm :
    

    Hello, I am Kristen Heckman, I work for Fulton Hill Properties. I wanted to clear up any confusion that may have occured as a result of my invitation being posted on the website. The open house on the 20th is for those who are curious or open minded about our project or those who do support it. I am still happy to meet with those who do not support it individually or on a different day and time. Councilwoman McQuinn has organized a meeting today between a few neighbors and Fulton Hill Properties to facilitate a discussion about the project and that would be a more appropriate forum for those who do not support the project. That meeting is today at 4:00 p.m. at my office - 1000 Carlisle Avenue. I would like to reiterate that I am happy to schedule a meeting with anyone with questions, concerns, or comments. I can be reached at (804) 226-9555. Thank you.

48. posted by Church Hill People’s News » special CHA meeting called for Monday - Richmond, Virginia at August 21, 2008 5:22 pm :
    

    [...] Oakwood Heights condominium project. The Commission of Architectural Review will be taking up the next iteration of the Oakwood Heights project the next day. Posted at 5:20PM under community | Tags: CHA, Oakwood [...]

Leave a Comment