Image default
Archive

Very new on M Street

Related posts

Then and now on M Street

Church Hill People's News

What’s that tower above Church Hill?

Kiet Vo

Ornamental Ironwork Tour, Sunday Nov. 17, 2PM – 4 PM

Church Hill People's News
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

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

66 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Juliellen
Juliellen
4 years ago

Finally, an infill house that reflect its time in design and materials. No more Phony-Colonie, faux historic, inauthentic architecture. Keep the old, but don’t build new to look old. This is so refreshing.

Debbie Campbell
Debbie Campbell
4 years ago

Its ugly

Chris Jefferson
Chris Jefferson
4 years ago

Chris Jefferson liked this on Facebook.

Heather Boylan Drew
Heather Boylan Drew
4 years ago

Heather Boylan Drew liked this on Facebook.

Terry Peters
Terry Peters
4 years ago

This very cool. Old and new together. Onward and Upward!

Zhiela Ashtiani
Zhiela Ashtiani
4 years ago

Zhiela Ashtiani liked this on Facebook.

Ann Schweitzer
Ann Schweitzer
4 years ago

Ann Schweitzer liked this on Facebook.

Joshua Champagne
Joshua Champagne
4 years ago

Joshua Champagne liked this on Facebook.

Liz Wall
Liz Wall
4 years ago

I like it. But it doesn’t make me think “Church Hill,” though that’s not necessarily terrible. They’ve been building contemporary shapes like this on the beach in the Hamptons for years (albeit with pools and tennis courts…). Is it the materials? What actually makes this build say 2016 and define it as the start of a change curve?

Liz Wall
Liz Wall
4 years ago

Liz Wall liked this on Facebook.

Elizabeth Hogshire
Elizabeth Hogshire
4 years ago

Elizabeth Hogshire liked this on Facebook.

Terry Peters
Terry Peters
4 years ago

Terry Peters liked this on Facebook.

David Bass
David Bass
4 years ago

David Bass liked this on Facebook.

David
David
4 years ago

I sure hope that’s not representative of 2015-2016. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder…I’m trying to find the beauty.

Vanyali
Vanyali
4 years ago

Beautiful, but I doubt that the building will really last 75-100 years with those building methods. Modern building methods are designed to be good enough for disposable buildings, not permanent ones. It really does look sharp though.

Sandra Lubbers
Sandra Lubbers
4 years ago

Sandra Lubbers liked this on Facebook.

The Pediatric Connection
The Pediatric Connection
4 years ago

The Pediatric Connection liked this on Facebook.

Paul S
Paul S
4 years ago

Not a fan. While I strongly prefer a *well executed* faux historic new construction over this I understand reasonable people may differ on such matters of aesthetics.

That said, one of the great things about Chimbo/Church hill are all the front porches nestled just a few feet from the sidewalk. Neighbors spending time on the front porch fosters community in an organic way. It would have been nice for these stark modern boxes to have incorporated front porches.

Terry Peters
Terry Peters
4 years ago

@#1 “Phony-Colonie, faux historic, inauthentic architecture” I love it!

Brian Hall
Brian Hall
4 years ago

Brian Hall liked this on Facebook.

Jay McGee
Jay McGee
4 years ago

Jay McGee liked this on Facebook.

Joseph Carson
Joseph Carson
4 years ago

Joseph Carson liked this on Facebook.

Susan W Burdette
Susan W Burdette
4 years ago

Susan W Burdette liked this on Facebook.

Lee
Lee
4 years ago

The thing that says “2015 or so” are the corrugated/seemed metal and the panel systems. The shape makes it look like an old row house / town house that someone “updated in the name of progress.” The shingles and the flat roof make it look like a 1960s/1970s modernist kit/prefab house. I don’t dislike modern architecture (and I suppose this could be considered postmodern, for the mix of references/materials and form) but any warping, ground settlement, water damage, or significant lack of maintenance and I bet this thing will look a lot worse in it’s old age than an old… Read more »

Lee
Lee
4 years ago

@ #1 and #8 – I keep hearing people talk about tacky “colonial” architecture up here, but I’m not aware of anyone building anything colonial. There are plenty of ugly new-but-meant-to-look-historic properties that fail rather spectacularly. But where are the colonial houses that you two mention? That’s more of a crappy suburban thing, last I checked…

Michael Bacon
Michael Bacon
4 years ago

“That’s when architecture started to change?”

So why does this look like it was built in the 1970s?

ARCHITECTS OF THE WORLD — THERE IS MORE TO LIFE THAN EMPTY POLYGONS!

Michael Bacon
Michael Bacon
4 years ago

For more of this kind of tragically comic architecture:

http://unhappyhipsters.com/

Terry Peters
Terry Peters
4 years ago

@10 – pretty sure that colonie is just in there because it rhymes with phony, just sayin’

Patrick Sullivan
Patrick Sullivan
4 years ago

Check out 3307m.com for more info and to follow along with the progress!

Heather Vollman
Heather Vollman
4 years ago

Heather Vollman liked this on Facebook.

Patrick Sullivan
Patrick Sullivan
4 years ago

Patrick Sullivan liked this on Facebook.

Cadeho
Cadeho
4 years ago

I imagine that in some years, it’d be renovated to look like an old house. But yeah modern houses are not built to last. If they do make it to 75-100 years, it’d definitely be worth preserving. But I would rather take a properly well-executed “faux historic” house. That is what I’d do if I had a company that built such. They should build whole new neighborhoods of modern houses instead of infill where the architecture clashes.

Betty
Betty
4 years ago

I can’t wait until The POD store sues for stealing their moving storage design for this…

Lee
Lee
4 years ago

@ Terrie/#14. Fair enough/was not how I read that, lol. I was thinking “someone hasn’t had their coffee yet” but turns out I was the one who was out of it.

Juliellen
Juliellen
4 years ago

Historic preservationists are all about architectural authenticity. Building new that looks old is not preservation and not historic. And yes, “colonie” rhymes with “phony.” It’s a favorite phrase of my HP professor in grad school. It makes me chuckle.

Michael Bacon
Michael Bacon
4 years ago

Re:16 — this thing really does kind of say, “yeah, we thought those houses made out of old shipping containers were cool, so we thought we’d do the same as a row house . . . “

Michael Weeks
Michael Weeks
4 years ago

Michael Weeks liked this on Facebook.

Eric S. Huffstutler
Eric S. Huffstutler
4 years ago

First, I want to know if the CAR approved this design? Next, it falls into the same design atrocity as to what was built at 21st and Broad. It doesn’t “fit in”. When you have a historic neighborhood that is on not one but two registries, there are guidelines in protecting the visual fabric. There are guidelines that the CAR (and the government) approved in 1999 that the CAR is supposed to abide by and the part on new Infills says in part: ” All new residential and commercial construction, whether in the form of additions or entire buildings, should… Read more »

Jeesus
Jeesus
4 years ago

Hey Eric Huff. Read the article. Or do some basic research. CAR doesn’t have jurisdiction over this area.

Eric S. Huffstutler
Eric S. Huffstutler
4 years ago

@21 So, it falls in that doughnut hole? Let me look. Does it miss both O&H and Church Hill North or only O&H?

Eric S. Huffstutler
Eric S. Huffstutler
4 years ago

@Jeesus… you are correct. I am not infallible but it is a bit confusing. This should fall in what is the O&H Chimborazo district designated in 1987 but it only covers a block away and around the park and not the entire Chimborazo area. It is obviously outdated and should be expanded. I think this design group’s arrogance is what rubs me wrong. That they are going to try and make changes in old historic neighborhoods. True, people buying homes today are not into “formal” living as we are. I am not opposed to this design either. Just that they… Read more »

Lee
Lee
4 years ago

@ 23/Eric Most preservation, conservation, rehabilitation programs and the like contain a focus on “compatible but differentiated design” and mandates to avoid “faux historicism”. These ideas are routinely applied in a puritanical fashion to renovations, additions, and new construction with sometimes hilariously idiotic outcomes. Most of the guidelines in federal and local preservation programs contain a subtextual modernist bias. For example, if a decorative element is missing from a historic structure, and there is little in the way of evidence from the surrounding buildings and no photographs of what it looked like, many of these preservation programs will not allow… Read more »

Cadeho
Cadeho
4 years ago

@Juliellen… a neighborhood especially representing a period, should be homogeneous in period and style. Of course a new house is not historic. Mixed period neighborhoods can look ugly… like mine… houses from about 1900, then 1930, 1950s housing project, then 1960s, 1970s apartments.. a church in a 1930s school with 1970s and 1980s additions, then some awful looking suburban 2006 houses. It would look better if the original neighborhood still existed. I would love to protect what’s left because we have a story… we should replace the gaps with houses that look like their neighbors, so if it’s 21st century’s… Read more »

Eric S. Huffstutler
Eric S. Huffstutler
4 years ago

Also, the design looks too minimalist and industrial. Reminds me of a small office building from the 1960s rather than a house.

Ella Guerrero
Ella Guerrero
4 years ago

Looks just okay, but lacks the character as an old Richmond house

Joshua Cooley
Joshua Cooley
4 years ago

Joshua Cooley liked this on Facebook.

Riccard Ricky Gavilan
Riccard Ricky Gavilan
4 years ago

Riccard Ricky Gavilan liked this on Facebook.

Juliellen
Juliellen
4 years ago

Eric, variety does tell a story. My neighborhood has a mix of houses from the 19th century through 2000s. It’s a wonderful physical story of this place. The M Street project is refreshing. I hope that good modern design continues to evolve in Richmond.

neighbor
neighbor
4 years ago

I will take more of these than the boarded up wrecks that have been in the neighborhood for decades or the empty lots. Without this development and dare I say things like the Pear Street development or Scotts Additions Towers, there will be never any real estate tax money for schools and bike lanes that people wants.

Terry Peters
Terry Peters
4 years ago

@29 hear, hear!

66
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x