Image default
Archive

180RVA organizing for Monday’s City Council meeting

180RVA is gearing up for Monday’s City Council meeting:

A call to all Richmonders and our neighbors who want to “Save the 180 view”

The threat to the Libby Hill viewshed is now even more real due to the vote by the Planning Commission on April 21st to forward it to City Council for their meeting on April 28th.

Please turn up at City Hall next Monday at 6.00pm to show solid support to stop the approval of the SUP for the 16 story condominium at 2801 E Main St.

We propose in its place a 5 story condominium with the same number of apartments which will complement the historic apartments along Tobacco Row.

Please wear some thing conspicuously red.

More details of this proposed 16 story massive skyscraperper can be found on the attached flyer and at http://180rva.com

Our facebook page is: https://www.facebook.com/180RVA

Please contribute to the debate – add your photos and comments

Please would you post your comments on the following two links.

Also, click LIKE and DISLIKE, as appropriate, on the comments that are there already.

1) http://www.styleweekly.com/richmond/proposed-high-rise-condos-offer-river-views-to-some-will-block-others/Content?oid=2058316

2) /2014/04/16/180rva-leading-fight-against-pear-street-dock-street-developments_33116/

Finally but crucially: our on-line petition is at:
http://www.change.org/petitions/richmond-city-council-we-urge-city-council-to-preserve-the-historic-panoramic-view-shed-of-the-james-river-from-libby-hill-park-do-not-permanently-scar-this-premier-view-by-approving-precedent-setting-skyscrapers

Thank you for following our argument – if this view is lost you may wake up and wonder “how could that be allowed, what were we thinking of ” – but by then it will be too late.

There is an alternative – it’s sensible compatible development, which is what we are demanding.

The River View Advocates

ATTACHED: /wp-content/uploads/2014/04/PEAR-ST-CONDOS-B-W-FLYER-5-FINAL.pdf

Related posts

“Shiplock Views” Development on Pear Street Closer to Reality

Gustavo

City Council to consider Pear Street, 29th Street Bike Boulevard

John M

Pear Street project moving forward as five stories

John M
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

39 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Chrissy Schlegel
Chrissy Schlegel
6 years ago

Sharing and passing the word

Tom N Eileen
Tom N Eileen
6 years ago

Tom N Eileen liked this on Facebook.

crd
crd
6 years ago

Agreed that the view is everyone’s, but it appears from another thread that this issue is continued to May 27.

Michael Jones
Michael Jones
6 years ago

Michael Jones liked this on Facebook.

180RVA
180RVA
6 years ago

Yes – the published agenda does now state that the Pear St “discussion and decision day” will now be May 27th and not this coming Monday.
This will be verified but for the moment that is the best information

Brandi Watkins
Brandi Watkins
6 years ago

Brandi Watkins liked this on Facebook.

Robert Batchelor
Robert Batchelor
6 years ago

Robert Batchelor liked this on Facebook.

Don O'Keefe
Don O'Keefe
6 years ago

I’m glad it was recommended for approval by the planning commission. I hope it makes it through. Great project.

Houdon
Houdon
6 years ago

I find this group’s name unwittingly apt: with 180• they have only half a perspective.

chpnfan
chpnfan
6 years ago

Are they hoping that we’ll all be on a long Memorial day vacation and not show up?

Scott
Scott
6 years ago

A neighbor looked up the letters of support for the high rise project to the Planning Commission. It’s public record. It should come as no surprise that many of those supporting the project are the same who are supporting the Shockoe stadium proposal. There is the Shockoe Partnership (David White on the board), Shockoe Bottom Neighborhood Assoc., Dutton and Assoc., Mark Merhige and Larry Shifflett (business partners). Various realtors and architects, and there are 6 restaurant owners: Arcadia, Aqua, Rosie Connolly’s Pub, Havana, River City Diner, Poe’s Pub. Residents of St. Andrews Lane, Hanover Ave. Grove Ave., Floyd Ave, Riverside… Read more »

formerlibbyhillresident
formerlibbyhillresident
6 years ago

For years, when Echo Harbor was in play, we were told it was the “historic downriver view” that needed to be saved. Now it is the “panoramic” view.

Is the stadium also in this 180 degree view?

Resident of CH
Resident of CH
6 years ago

I think building tall buildings on the sides of the river is a horrible idea.

RVA is creating a “Cement Canyon”, where once a beautiful and historic river, ran through it for all the people.

RVA’s past bad economic decisions – apparently now “justify” – – even more bad decisions, in the present.

Really-RVA! OMG.

edg
edg
6 years ago

@Scott – I would be very interested in reading the letters you reference. Is there a link where it is available to the public?

jean mcdaniel
jean mcdaniel
6 years ago

Scott and edg
Yes, Please give a link for these letters. i tried looking them up but had no success. Thanks

about that
about that
6 years ago

A “Cement Canyon”? Really?
It is over 600 feet from the river

Aud
Aud
6 years ago

@Houdon Want to enlighten us?

jean mcdaniel
jean mcdaniel
6 years ago

about that @12 YES, a cement canyon! To get an idea of how development should be done, go to Chicago, Washington, D.C., Boston or any major City in Europe (except London). Public acess is open to the rivers visually and physically. The areas surrounding D.C. like Crystal City ( Virginia Maryland ) are good examples of cement canyons. No sun, no air. You wouldn’t even know there was a river running thru it. Central Park in New York has been blocked so much from getting sun it’s hard to maintain park greenery. You are missing the point! Where did you… Read more »

180RVA
180RVA
6 years ago

From: “Lory P. – PDR Markham”
To: “Samuel – City Council Liaison Patterson”
Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2014 11:45:18 AM
Subject: RE: Monday’s Council agenda – Pear St now moved to May 27th

This item may be continued to May 12 instead of May 27. I will let you know once I have confirmation.
Thanks,
Lory

Ron
Ron
6 years ago

There is one way to solve all the problems so many of you seem to have with ‘ANY’ development on the river. Buy the d**n land if you buy up all the land surrounding church hill there will never be anymore worries of progress of this magnitude. It amazes me how people such as yourselves can whine so ‘LOUDLY’ when a developer is willing to spend millions of dollars on our city. It is the river and the last time I checked the river did not belong to any individual neighbourhood, but all of us. The view of the river… Read more »

Next Friend
Next Friend
6 years ago

If you 180 degrees people are successful in stopping every good development that isn’t exactly perfect (like pear street and the Shockoe ballpark), you will NEVER get anything you like more, because you will have shown that nothing can get done down here. I’m guess that’s your plan – that all of this land remains a fallow no man’s land so your exclusive Mayberry-upon-the-Hill remains quiet and remote. We’ve all got your number, TunnelVisionRVA.

Bill 3
Bill 3
6 years ago

KNIBB HIGH SCHOOL FOOTBALL RULES!

jean mcdaniel
jean mcdaniel
6 years ago

Ron When the debate over weather or not to institute a State Lottery was on going , the big sell was that all proceeds would go to improving the school system. Since implementation of the Virginia State Lottery, it seems that the school system has gotten worse. If, ” we in the City ” are the laughing stock of so many great cities, it is because of the way this City has been run for the last 30 or so years. Payoffs, bribs, deals struck behind closed doors with shady developers with even more shady financing. Even YOU point out… Read more »

Aud
Aud
6 years ago

“It is the river and the last time I checked the river did not belong to any individual neighbourhood [sic], but all of us.” Thank you Ron, for proving our point. I don’t know of anyone who is against developing the land (build away, I say!). The developer purchased the land, which included zoning restrictions. After purchasing the land, he now states he can’t finance his project without the height? Sorry, Charlie.

edg
edg
6 years ago
edg
edg
6 years ago

I echo Aud’s sentiments. The land was zoned for a smaller structure – we are no against developing the land, we are against a much larger, 16-floor structure. Why is that distinction so hard to understand? A 5-6 story structure, for most of us who want to protect the view, is fine. A giant high rise is not.

laura
laura
6 years ago

I, for one, am at a loss to understand why the developer would have a tough time “making the numbers work” with a smaller structure. Well executed projects in the area do very well for both rentals and sales. The $/sq ft value does not increase exponentially by adding more stories to a building (in the Richmond market).

It makes me wonder if there is something else in play here…is the developer trying to rub the collective Church Hill nose in something?

Resident of CH
Resident of CH
6 years ago

Build Pear St. in Oregon HIll or below the Virginia War Memorial why not or lets consider a 16 story condo along: Cherokee Drive, at Pony Pasture or River Road – OMG! Why Not? Because James River Association, JROC, City Parks, Sierra, and civic associations have protected the banks, views and the River … but not in the East End. Location, location, location… the East End of RVA vulnerable and exploitable. So let me see – the Stadium, Pear St., & Echo Harbor, where are all of these controversial building projects proposed? Bingo! Don’t abuse the East End of the… Read more »

jean mcdaniel
jean mcdaniel
6 years ago

Aud I agree with all you said except that this “parcel of land” was originally 4 seperate parcels. Mr. White had it surveyed and labeled two parcels. The Rockets View apts. ( a furniture factory ) was a give away by VHDA and Mr. White and his pals just happened to be available to snatch it up and turn it into apts. The documents currently at the Planning Commission show that balconies overhang the property line, as well as encroaching on adjacent property. Some other questionable little tidbits are also revealed. I don’t think anyone is against an appropriate size… Read more »

ray
ray
6 years ago

#26 Laura

You do know the developer Mr. David White intends to live in one of the top floor penthouses, don’t you?

laura
laura
6 years ago

@ Ray… I didn’t know that but a very nice penthouse on floor 5 or 6 could still command over a $1 mil sales price.
Rocketts Landing comes quickly to mind, Monument Square condos, etc….

ray
ray
6 years ago

It’s the river view, Laura, he wants the view.

That’s where the real money is, the floors with the best views. More floors in his building, more views and more money for him.

Screw the little people who enjoy the park…..

East Grace
East Grace
6 years ago

He needs the height in case they build Echo Harbor. I am guessing to have the kind of view he wants he needs to be a good bit taller. Which is probably why the lower units are now considerably smaller. They may not end up with the same kind of view as he thought they would have so they are now smaller and cheaper so they will sell. This is all about the penthouses.

180RVA
180RVA
6 years ago

For those of you who wish to review all the documents presented by the Planning Staff and by the Developer at the recent Planning Commission meeting on Apr 21st you can download them using this link.

https://richmondva.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=1717424&GUID=97D8763F-FB66-499D-B669-99A89EB35F0B&Options=&Search

Aud
Aud
6 years ago

I stand corrected – thank you, Jean!

Next Friend
Next Friend
6 years ago

Jean McDaniel – I appreciate your advocacy (in seriousness, not in jest). That said, none of the details of the development you describe are “less than above-board.” In fact, they are all above board and customary. Encroachments, lot consolidation – all of that is totally normal.
Frankly, this building would be cooler design if it were taller. The initial drawings with more stories gave it a lighter, soaring feel. If it’s ugly, it’s because of design by committee. Shorter you make him make it, uglier and cheaper-looking it will be.

ray
ray
6 years ago

Creative spin, Next Friend, (it’s ugly because it’s not high enough.)

At least you admit it’s ugly.

Katarina S H Pace
Katarina S H Pace
6 years ago

Katarina S H Pace liked this on Facebook.

180RVA
180RVA
6 years ago

From: “Markham, Lory”
Sent: Monday, April 28, 2014 8:41:25 AM
Subject: RE: E. Main St Ordinances – continuation of both
According to the Agenda on the Clerk’s website both items related to the development at 2801 E. Main St. are to be continued this evening (http://eservices.ci.richmond.va.us/applications/clerkstracking/getPDFCouncil.asp?NO=417&TYPE=A).
I will let you know if things change at the informal meeting today.

Added by 180RVA: The agenda gives the continuation date as being the 27th May

39
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x