The One Shiplock condo project planned for Cary and Dock Street that hit our radar last September has put up a real estate site with renderings of the tower.
h/t Richmond City Watch
— ∮∮∮ —
“A spectacular site deserves a spectacular property.” — Dave Johannas, Architect
How tall would this building be in relation to the Lucky Strike warehouse’s roofline (not the smoke stack)?
“Spectacular”…. seriously??? Possibly the real thing will look better than the rendering.
ugly. Looks like a tall motel.
It sure didn’t take long for someone to complain about the skyline. No buildings equals no progress. I guess people would rather Richmond stay it same old stale and static self forever? Prime property for construction will always be along the water for tenants views and the higher up, the better the view.
As far as Johannas’ claim about being “spectacular”… looks blah and dated to me. But at least doesn’t have that cheap ugly industrial metal corrugated siding!
This “project” keeps changing names. The only thing “spectacular” about it is the arrogance of the developer and the extremely creative positioning of the “renderings”
I thought this was a “done deal” as explained by Mr. Rawls when it was first presented to the CHA. I also remember shelling out $5000.00 of CHA money to oppose it. What happened? Does anybody know who is in charge of this money?
Doesn’t look like a motel but does have some dated 1970s box apartment building elements. There are some interesting Art Deco flairs but he misses the mark to go one way or another with this design. Again, one of his Frankenbuilding ideas.
And again another too conservative concept. If you want to go historic, go whole hog with a total retro brick design. If you are leaning towards modern, do it up Vegas style and not be chicken about it. Where it is being built doesn’t have the same “historic” neighborhood concerns as if it was being built in Church Hill proper. If you want to progress forward, do it up right.
Eric, is that you?
Pretty building. Though the sequence of photo’s makes it read as a view blocker, the massing if this building may do much to protect the view that could be taken away on the two salmonosky parcels and the echo harbor parcel. I believe this is only 5 stories above Main Street, and the thinness allows it to be tall but not massive. One of the prettiest buildings on Cary street, and the Cary Street gym is one of these, is Johannes’ ‘Mews at Cary place’. Pretty modern and extremely complimentary to older buildings!
#8 I agree, and it does not affect the view that badly anyway. Hell it might even improve the skyline if it were more attractively designed, but brick seems to be a CAR requirement outside of downtown…
Looks great to me. All you old greedy hogs are concerned about are your property values, boosted by your ”river views”. About time something of value be built on the overgrown vacant lot. Build it out and stretch the urban fabric all the way down to Stone Brewing/Rockett’s.
This is great. It’s not my favorite design, but Richmond needs more development. I’m excited for there to be more life in Shockoe Bottom
More density=better. Would’ve been nice if there was some retail on the first floor, though…
@Thomas Nelson — I’d wager the majority of critics are those not residing within the park, like me. Everyday, many walk/bike/drive to Libby Hill to behold and experience the view for free. If this still makes me an “old greedy hog,” then oink oink baby.
I agree with the person that hacked Eric SH’s account. It’s a little frankentect, but OK. As far as the blocked view, I don’t really think the folks standing on Libby Hill are looking at the lock to Chapel’s Island. Aren’t they beholding the “view that named the city” which is more downstream? If the renderings are almost to scale, the only people that suffer a view are the folks above the building on Main. FWIW, I’ve seen more people at Jefferson Park than Libby lately. I guess people know there are numerous places to view the river, but only a select few to take in downtown. 🙂
I like it… I think it works.
I like the look and all the balconies to create open space. I’d probably do a few things differently, but I’m not the architect.
When we talk about protecting the skyline views, isn’t it the buildings that create the “skyline view”? The “view that named a city” is more south.
And yes, I supported this and the old Echo Harbor project when I lived on the Hill.
@12– Eric–well said.
@26 exactly. This isn’t even the famed ”view that named the city”. That’s even further downstream. Looking at the renderings, this won’t even make any kind of obstruction, it barely even matches the height of the buildings surrounding it. People don’t know when their city is changing and when they do, they just refuse to accept it. That’s why these lots will sit fallow and abandoned.
I would buy one tomorrow, but it will definitely be out of my price range based on the renderings – would be great to hop on the trail right out the front door! As far as views, shouldn’t be in the way and certainly not any taller than Lucky Strike building since it is further down the hill. Better than the overgrown weeds and trash there now.
Funny… yes, it is me 🙂
I think a lot of people get me wrong. I love modern architecture – chrome and glass buildings. I also love old architecture and preserving it. There is a lot of Richmond other than what falls within the Old & Historic districts, which are centered close to downtown. If it is in a historic neighborhood, I am against modernistic designs and for preservation. If it falls outside those boundaries, I am all for big, flashy, modern buildings that progresses us forward and towards the future!
Preservation of our heritage surrounded by modern progress.
BTW… I don’t like the exterior but do like the interior renderings.
This isn’t terrible. I don’t love it/probably not somewhere I would choose to live, but “looks like a nice place to visit” so to speak. Also seems appropriate for the location. I’m not speaking to the viewshed issues at all/no opinion on that front.
One view of this “rendering” has 8 stories and another view has 11. What gives?
@33 Jean McDaniel, the slope of the land results in 11 on the river side and 8 on the uphill side.
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *