Comments on: The Union Hill Historic District

By: See you first

See you first — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 18:31:07 +0000

John,
I’m so glad to see your post on the crime in church hill. It’s great that we’re becoming a safer place to live. However, we still have the stigma of being so dangerous. I personally get sick of my west end friends asking me “how do you like church hill, are you scared”.
We do have more crime than the west end, and so does the fan. The fan has a great deal of crime.
It is my opinion if we could get rid of Mosby court, the crime rate would decline even more. I love the area over there, and it was very tempting to buy one of those houses across from Jefferson Park. Although, it was a great temptation, I still remember that gun in my face. It’s not to say it couldn’t happen to me today over here.
However, I feel it’s a mental thing on how a person feels.
You all stand together, and work hard to prevent anymore vinyl sided houses. The main problem I have over here is the neighbors refuse to stand with me and complain.
It’s my dream we’ll have a neighborhood up here that we can all someday walk safely to shops etc.
Happy Thanksgiving to you and all of church hill.

By: john_m

john_m — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 11:48:00 +0000

@See you - When real numbers were put together, it turned out that CH North and Union Hill weren't that dangerous after all:

In response to Church Hill being named the “10th Most Dangerous Neighborhood in America”, Matt Conrad of the Union Hill Civic Association had data provided by Lt. Laino of Sector 111 that brings some perspective to the designation (PDF). The data makes very clear what residents of the Union Hill and Church Hill North already know: crime is not only down from a few years ago, but is dramatically down from 6 and 7 years ago. There were 205 violent or property crimes in Union Hill in 2003, last year there were but 75. Church Hill North saw 330 violent or property crimes in 2002, but only 117 in 2008. Somewhere in the middle of this historic decline, an area comprised of part of each of these neighborhoods was theoretically so bad statistically that it qualified as one of the most dangerous in the county. In an email sharing Laino’s data with Union Hill residents, though, Conrad points out that “WalletPop predicted 169 violent crimes in the area they selected over the next year. In reality, there were only 27 violent crimes in the entirety of Union Hill and Church Hill North during the last full year” of data.

By: See you first

See you first — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 11:27:14 +0000

I think it’s wonderful all the changes that have taken place in Union Hill. However, I used to live on Venable St. in 1996 and was robbed at gun-point in my own yard.
It’s quite amazing all the changes, and some of the renovations are beautiful. You still would never get me to live over there again, it’s that part of chuch hill that recently made the top 10 most dangerous neighborhoods in the U.S.
Therefore, I can only conclude it hasn’t changed in reference to crime. Church hill is still my home, and will be for many more years. However, I’ll remain across from Chimbo. park, my house is huge and I feel a lot safer over here.
I do highly support all that’s taken place over there, but the vinyl sided houses are gross. And we have our share of them in our district as well.
I wish you all luck on stopping the renovation, and new contruction of vinyl sided houses. We’ve had little luck stopping them in our district.
I’ve complained about it until I’m my face has gone green to “ARC” about it.
They never do anything, and hopefully you’ll have much better luck.
You really need to push for the detruction of Mosby Court. If you can get rid of that element, your neighborhood would be much safer.

By: Laura Daab

Laura Daab — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 04:06:05 +0000

Congratulations Union Hill!

Worth noting that the “sense of place” that keeps getting mentioned here is attributed to Steven W. Semes who, in my opinion, “gets it” when it comes to preserving architecture and our historic communities:

From Contrast to Continuity: A New Preservation Philosophy
By Steven W. Semes

http://www.planetizen.com/node/41351

He also has a really great book. It’s a bit esoteric and text book-like, but still, a worthy read:

The Future Of The Past: A Conservation Ethic for Architecture, Urbanism, and Historic Preservation by Steven W. Semes

You can purchase it on Amazon.com for about $30 or so.

By: Bill Conkle

Bill Conkle — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 21:42:52 +0000

Whatever the vote tonight, we wake up in the morning as a neighborhood and we have to move forward as such. In time of need, it is your neighbor that will be there to get you through the crisis…to walk the dog, lend you a key ingredient to that soup, help you jump your car so you won’t be late for work, lend you their tall ladder to clean your gutters, fix you a meal when a loved on passes away, and keep a look out for your place when you are out of town…

I support the O&HD because I believe our neighborhood will be better off 25 years from now if we are designated as a City Old and Historic District today. I think the historic fabric of Union Hill and the “sense of place” will be well served with this status. Some of my neighbors disagree, but at the end of the day, we are neighbors.

By: CaptitalGal

CaptitalGal — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 20:35:18 +0000

@9. The official city surveys are the ONLY objective measure of Union Hill property-owner sentiment regarding the district. Your petition is not valid (see points made below).

-The official City Survey cards were mailed to every Union Hill property on record with the city. The surveys garnered a 30% response rate. That’s even better than the 27% 7th District registered voter turnout in the last election. (source: Virginia Board of Elections & VPAP)

-59% of respondents chose “I Support” on the response card. In the last election, the our new council person garnered 51% of the vote. The governor-elect won with 58% of the vote and that was considered a landslide.

-the Survey Cards, which could be completed and returned in private, gave respondents the option of “support” “do not support” or “no opinion”.

-Your petition only gave the respondent one choice: to oppose the district. Members of the Planning Commission pointed this out last week, and thus, cast the petition aside as an invalid document.

-There are reports from neighbors that petitioners were heard to use fear mongering rhetoric with some of the folks they asked to sign. Honestly, if someone walked up to me and said “I’ll lose my house if this goes thru” i might sign a petition against it, too. But saying someone would lose their house if an O&HD happens is a falsehood. There are plenty of seniors and low income folks living in City O&HD’s like Jackson Ward and Church Hill North. Folks don’t get “pushed out”.

-Finally, another petition was circulated that asked signers to support the district. Many of those folks signed that petition after they signed the opposition’s. Further evidence that the petition you are referring to is an invalid representation of property owner opinion.

By: April

April — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 19:11:10 +0000

haha, it’s very hard to dignify post # 8 with a response. It seems the initiative takes the notions of ‘love it or leave it’ and ‘you’re either with us or against us’ as being valid arguments- which is silly. Nonetheless, from the beginning the proponents of this initiative have consistently viewed any other opinion than theirs to be not only wrong, but abhorrent and ‘against the neighborhood’, which couldn’t be further from the truth. No, to their discredit they undervalue the opinion of the neighbors they supposedly represent. So much so that the initiative, in it’s two years of ‘hard work’ failed to ask their neighbors opinions. Upon finally hearing said opinions they lash out as CapitalGal has shown.

CapitalGal, are you aware of the petition with 157 signatures against the initiative? You should also be aware that this brings the tally of opponents to 220. A wide majority BTW. Shouldn’t it be clear from now on, regardless of how Council votes today, that the majority opinion is against the initiative?

Thanks again for consulting your neighbors on this one. And thanks also for picking up trash. Most residents in the city do, including me.

By: CaptitalGal

CaptitalGal — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 16:48:36 +0000

@6, you’re grasping at the straws of an irrelevant discussion, in an attempt to defend a selfish position.

First of all, Mr. O’Kelly of Jewels, a resident of Union Hill, still owns the home you’re referring to, and is an ARDENT supporter the Union Hill City Old & Historic District.

Also, if you go back an look at that that thread, the folks who didn’t like the house don’t live in Union Hill.

If you look carefully, you’ll see that Union Hill residents actually defended Mr. O’Kelly/Jewels.

C’mon April, it’s obvious that you just don’t like the fact that the same citizens who plant trees, pick up trash, care for Jeff. Park and feed the homeless got together to do what is best for the future of our neighborhood.

You have chosen not to get involved in any productive way in this community, and now, all you can do is try to drag it down when we are moving forward in a way that will actually benefit you and your household.

Nevertheless, we are happy to share with you all the blessings that a Union Hill City Old & Historic District would bring to this community.

By: Houdon

Houdon — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 16:13:33 +0000

Union Hill is an incredible place that deserves this honor and protection! Cedar Street Baptist Church, whose history is really the history of our neighborhood, has written a beautiful letter of support, as well.

http://bit.ly/6HQQcW

By: April

April — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 13:23:43 +0000

Thanks John. It appears you are correct. And yet the entire thread there is evidence of the hysteria surrounding the Taste Police and their efforts to make people think that such a structure alters the historic fabric of the neighborhood– which it in fact does not. It is important to keep in mind that Jewels Inc is a proponent of the OH&D legislation. It may also be important to note that the person(s) currently residing @ 2105 M St is/are probably horrified to know what neighbors think of their new home.

By: Mr. Obvious

Mr. Obvious — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 12:53:04 +0000

What a beautiful neighborhood and write-up. We support your designation.

By: john_m

john_m — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 11:45:12 +0000

April - I'm not sure that the comments that you reference say what you think that they do. In comment #13 in the discussion of 2105, they are saying that they went to CAR on another project (at 26th Street & Leigh Street, in the Church Hill North O&H).

By: Bill Conkle

Bill Conkle — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 07:24:51 +0000

John, I fell asleep at the end of the Eagles’ game and got up to check whether they won or not and decided to check CHPN. This compilation is such a wonderful gift to our neighborhood. I agree with Matt in that our neighborhood has such an amazing story to tell, but our best days are still ahead of us. Thank you for pulling all this history and related pictures together.

By: April

April — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 04:00:17 +0000

Yes John, thanks very much for posting this piece. I especially enjoy the discussion highlighted above re: 2105 M St. Pay attention to the comments section posts #s 2,3 & 13. Keep in mind that posters 3 & 13 are both proponents of an OH&D. This is precisely the reason for not having such an invasive mandate against our neighbors, some of whom have lived in the neighborhood for 50+ years. While reading some of the comments from the 2105 M St post, keep in mind that the developer specifically went to CAR of his own accord, without the OH&D mandate.

By: Matt Conrad

Matt Conrad — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 02:37:48 +0000

John, what a beautiful and thoughtful tribute to a neighborhood that remains unique in all of Richmond. No matter what happens tomorrow, Union Hill has regained its sense of place and identity, thanks in large part to the work of citizens like you. We are indebted.