City Planning Commission to consider 310 North 33rd Street
The agenda for the Feb.22 meeting of the City Planning Commission (PDF) includes the following:
Ord. No. 2011-20: To authorize the special use of the property know as 310 North 33rd Street for the purpose of the conversion of the existing building ti a multi-family dwelling with up to fifty (50) units, upon certain terms and conditions.
DO IT!!!! Please approve this and let it be the cornerstone of revitalization for this part of the hill.
Wait…as I now notice the dates, so this was approved then?
Most likely she will get the approval and let it sit. When will grown breaking be for Oakwood development that the same developer fought for so long?
Those of you who yell “Do IT” should stop and think of how much you would like to have 50 new neighbors crammed into a small space next door to you with almost no provisions being made for parking.
And to hold 50 units, this building would have to be an all efficiency apartment building
are these the same folk trying to develope the City Stadium property?
50 seems like a whole lot of people and cars
small apartments …. lower price…. more affordable for those lower income tenants. Isen’t that a good thing?
shoehorning 50 tennants into smaller spaces is never a good thing. Would you like to be shoehorned into a walk in closet sized apartment?
Would rather they took a page from Lee Elementary just west of the Fan — those are big, nice apartments. I’d rather see 20 decent apartments than 50 closets.
I like Erik’s plan, but I would take the 50 units. Gordo…I live closer to this building than you do, and I would gladly have no problem parking further from my house if this development meant more people would invest in and/or rehab. the properties in the immediate area.
@ Lisa, thanks for speaking out for those who sometimes don’t have a voice on this website! Affordability is a good thing. It could allow folks who would otherwise be displaced by the neighborhood’s gentrification to remain. It could also allow young, recent college grads to move into Church Hill, which will add to the neighborhood’s diversity and vitality. Finally, with more density, potential future businesses could have more customers from which to draw. If the remaining empty storefronts in this neighborhood are ever to come back to life, it will be necessary for them to have a larger, immediate pool of customers, ideally within walking distance.
Gordo, not sure if you have been to this part of the hill, its a ghost town and has been for at least the past ten years.
Parking is not an issue.
#8 I’d choose a large closet over sleeping in the street if that was the only shelter I could afford.
http://eservices.ci.richmond.va.us/applications/propertysearch/Detail.aspx?pin=E0000811001
35 Apartments
35 was the unit count when the building was a senior housing property. I managed that building for the previous owner and at that time it was 11 one bedroom and 24 efficiencies, all Section 8. There was nothing in the basement or in the top floor. Those spaces could be utilized but the electric and plumbing would have to be upgraded.
I think everyone is in favor of thoughtful revitalization, especially in the Chimborazo District. The question is whether this project will, in fact, create the benefits we all hope for, like affordable housing and a diverse, vibrant urban community. A couple of facts I think should inform the discussion: (1) the majority of units (28 of the 50) are 388 square feet (less than 20′ X 20′), which is REALLY small, and (2) these small units are expected to rent for more than $800 per month according to the developer, which is not super affordable, at least to me. As for parking, I live right there, and 33rd and Broad streets are nearly filled with cars just about every evening. I’m guessing that 50 more will be noticeable…
I live a block away from this place and 50 new residents would fill up available parking quickly.
And, isnt making it all section 8 housing propigating a problem? Concentrated poverty? WHy not make some attractive rentable units and have them help defer the costs of turning a few into section 8 units?
But 50 section 8 units in this building only slightly different from buidling some sort of communal poverty barracks. Not an ideal solution to anything.
Just some clarification – where does it say they will be Section 8 units?
I didn’t think the current plans called for Section 8. I think that was what it used to be back when Mr. Hartsock (#15) managed it as a senior community. I do not recall seeing anything in the current plans about Section 8, but if someone finds it please say so, thanks.
When I last looked at the current plans, they called for 55 units. And if I lived closer to it, I’d be worried about the impact on parking. The only plus factor I can think of is that it might force the people who hang out there, having bought from the Blue Wheeler, to either relocate or leave (leaving being the preferable option).
800.00 for 380 sq. ft? Can you provide proof of this claim. Who did you speak to?
Magneto … see you at the art auction tomorrow!
http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/2011/mar/07/1/richmond-planning-commission-rejects-church-hill-a-ar-889212/
#20, according to the linked article in the Times Dispatch (link in #21), the “amount of liveable space in the units would range from 388 to 722 square feet.”… “She [Freund] said she’s designing the project with a mix of efficiency and one-bedroom apartments for medical students, professionals and other workers. Rents are expected to range from $700 to $1,400 per month.”
According to the paper, the planning council agreed with the neighbors that 50 units was just too damn many.
This will be interesting to watch as it goes to the city council. They seem ready to overide the plannig commission. Just like they did last time. It makes one wonder why the planning commission exists if the council will override it any time a donor has a conflict.
Any idea who the lucky neighbors are who will have to look at the parking lot she has arranged?
“Freund is offering 52 parking spaces, with 45 of them in a surface lot about a block and a half away.”
#24, there is a vacant lot about a block and a half away going west on Marshall. I can remember seeing it, and tried google maps to find the address, but the map identified it as 301 N. 32nd, which the city database doesn’t recognize. Go figure. That’s the closest I can find either by trying to visualize it, or by using google maps sattelite view to look at the surrounding area.
Post back if you can find anything else, please, or if you can figure out who owns that vacant lot.
#11. Magneto, I don’t think Lisa was “speaking out for those who sometimes don’t have a voice on this website”. I believe “Lisa” is one of many people in our neighborhood who is afraid of mixed-income, mixed-use development like what is proposed for 310 N. 33rd St. You Urban Planners need to educate the public about the “pros” of mixed-use/income communities and dispel their fears about more affordable housing in Church Hill once-and-for-all!!!!