Image default

Permit filed for demolition of trolley barn for 82-unit apartment complex

An application has been filed to demolish the old trolley barn (permit #D16021801) at 3801 Glenwood Avenue/3700 East Broad Street.

A new, high desensity project is proposed for the trolley barn parcel. An informed reader says that:

The Trolley Barn at 3801 Glenwood ave is under contract to an out-of-town low-income housing tax credit developer (Humanities Foundation out of Charleston). They are already approved for an 82-unit low income housing tax credit project there. This approval from VHDA never crossed the desk of our council person or Richmond planning department.

The property was notoriously considered for conversion to a sort of gentleman’s club to be called The Kings Retreat back in 2008.

City Council approved an expedited paper at their March 28, 2016 meeting allowing the developers of the adjacent property (the former trailer park) to explore funding/development. Sam Patterson, liaison to Councilperson Cynthia Newbille, said at the time that there would be community meetings, and the project was a ways down the line. This project was eventually cancelled.


Site with trailer park (undated)

Related posts

Glenwood Ave Apartments Project Moving Forward

Jacob C.

Three area points of contact on Glenwood Ridge Apartments

John M

Petition circulating to stall proposed Glenwood Ridge apartments

John M


SueWho 01/22/2017 at 10:02 AM

It’s unbelievable that this project evaded any scrutiny from various neighborhoods and neighborhood organizations. It looks like a prison and the complete antithesis of the newer trend for public housing to be dispersed within mixed-income developments/neighborhoods.

Paul 01/22/2017 at 10:10 AM

So back in March many of us were outraged by this rendering which basically looked like a prison. Or more importantly looked like the failed low income hi-rises that rose in the 50s/60s/70s that housing advocated have universally condemned. The kind that concentrates poverty and has no “defensible space”. Why are we going through all this effort with tens of millions of dollars to make Creighton Court a new mixed income community while just to repeat a failed formula at this Glenwood/Broad site?

I was under the impression quite a few people contacted Councilwoman Newbille after this rendering was first shared last March. Does anyone know if any of the feedback was incorporated or is the same albatross being pushed forward?

John Murden Jr. 01/22/2017 at 10:19 AM

this should go well

Gordon Miller 01/22/2017 at 10:40 AM

Looking forward to hearing the soothing sounds of the gun shots of the Courts, but only closer!

Joe Cox 01/22/2017 at 10:44 AM

I assume we can somehow get involved to put a stop to this?

Church Hill People's News 01/22/2017 at 10:55 AM

Haven’t heard anything specific yet. I’d say contact Cynthia Newbille and your neighborhood association

William Bagby 01/22/2017 at 11:01 AM

I’m always for growth in the East End… but this shit looks like the old Techwood Homes in Atlanta

Sarah La Mere 01/22/2017 at 11:01 AM

Agreed. We can do better.

Nia McCabe Strei 01/22/2017 at 11:01 AM

This is the worst plan I’ve seen. Ever. It looks like a prison.

Kathi Sanders 01/22/2017 at 1:01 PM

Is this the project that Newbille pushed through City Council so the developers could get their loan application filed?

Church Hill People's News 01/22/2017 at 2:01 PM

Kathi – That project died. It was for the land where the tailer park was, adjacent to this.

Eric S. Huffstutler 01/22/2017 at 2:40 PM

@16 NeighborhoodResident

True, I mainly brought up the CAR aspect because someone else did as well, John M. original post mention, and pointed out that the actual address did not come up. The 3811 address does butt up against 3801 though. It also falls outside of the DHR Oakwood-Chimborazo National Historic District. And saw that Newbille expedited a decision for that property so who is to say she would not do the same for others?

I believe when these DHR listings were created, industrial and Urban Development areas were excluded as not being of any value towards “contribution”. But as we have seen, and now seeing, these buildings have value as a historical part of everyday yesteryear.

To me, I think this should fall within the Fulton Hill area more so than Chimborazo but believe Gillies Creek is the division line?

A for Fulton, there was money assigned to residents as incentives for redevelopment of this area but between blight, flight, and floods, it was never used and nothing is left of this community to even protect now but a couple of infrastructure buildings. I am sure since the trolley shed building is within a stone’s throw, the same holds up for this part of the original Glenwood Park neighborhood – nothing left but a few industrial buildings? But again… even they have historical significance shortsighted by those who approve the DHR approvals.


Eric S. Huffstutler 01/22/2017 at 2:44 PM

Hmmm… several posts disappeared on this?

Juliellen 01/22/2017 at 3:25 PM

Comments should be made to the VHDA, as well as the city. LIHTC projects are supposed to be accessible to services, such as groceries and transit, as well as NOT be near other LIHTC and public housing projects. This is nearly adjacent to Ashley Oaks (LIHTC) and Rainbow Village (RRHA). They are also supposed to go through the zoning/permitting process; not sure if Richmond’s process has public notification or public hearing requirements. VHDA claims to support high-quality design, but obviously they didn’t push for it in the earlier plan. I’m not against LIHTC projects in principle, but mission-driven developers (like Better Housing Coalition or DHIC in Raleigh) make better developers and managers than for-profit developers who squeeze every penny, take their credits and run.

Clay Street 01/22/2017 at 3:35 PM

Wait, what? This is not okay! How did this get through?

mary 01/22/2017 at 3:45 PM

Sad to see deleting/editing so early on.

John M 01/22/2017 at 4:02 PM

@eric I’m working on the bit of code that handles Facebook comments import. Wires got crossed for a minute, I thought I may have lost some comments.

@mary – I don’t edit/delete comments. If something runs afoul of the guidelines, it never gets posted.

bill 01/22/2017 at 4:05 PM

vhda? isn’t that Hilbert’s outfit?

mary anne conmmy 01/22/2017 at 4:19 PM

Come on people! We need more diversity, not less. Church Hill is becoming more homogeneous with all of the gentrification going on here. Let’s have neighbors from all walks of life instead of people just like us. Perhaps we could all make an effort to get to know some people beyond our individual socioeconomic comfort-zones – not just as acquaintances but people you take an interest in knowing and forming relationships with – instead of prejudging the sort of people who live in low-income housing communities. There is nothing gained by prejudging everyone who needs housing but cannot afford to pay the same amount as you pay for your mortgage. You may believe I’m full of it but I am speaking from my own experience. I miss my former neighbors who have been replaced by more affluent newcomers. I like the newcomers as well but life for me is a great deal better having gotten to know so many people I never would have known if I had continued living in the homogeneous Fan District. The people I love most are no longer living in our neighborhood. It is honestly your loss too not having had the opportunity to meet them. Don’t let income be the primary factor when deciding upon lending support to or fighting housing development.

Leigh 01/22/2017 at 4:19 PM

Things are going so well for the Church Hill area! This is an awful idea for so many reasons. Why would the city agree to this? If anyone can help direct how to go about deterring this, please post updates

mary 01/22/2017 at 4:21 PM

…and it may have been when the wires got crossed.

Juliellen 01/22/2017 at 4:45 PM

Hilbert works there. He’s not head-honcho or anything. VHDA does good work; I’m leary of slamming affordable housing just because. I would welcome senior housing at that site, but it’s not ideal for the residents because of the lack of services. No idea if this is planned senior housing or family. Either way, I’d much rather see BHC (or similar) organization as developer than an out-of-town for-profit entity. Has anyone checked to see if this project has been awarded tax credits, or if this is in preparation to submit an application for tax credits? The deadline for preliminary applications for 2017 credits is this month. If they have not been awarded credits, they have a steep climb, unless they are going for the non-competitive pool.

Kathi Sanders 01/22/2017 at 5:01 PM

Got it! Thanks!

Juliellen 01/22/2017 at 5:07 PM

See link below (but keep reading first). See first page, Richmond Pool in red. Looks like Glenwood Ridge was #2 in the Richmond pool of 2016 LIHTC applications. It is above the double line and therefore received enough points to be awarded credits. The area code of the contact # is Charleston SC. Not in non-profit pool.

Even though it has enough points to be awarded credits, it still has to meet local development requirements.

VHDA requires quite a bit of design quality as well as local support in the application–I wonder what kind of support this project received. Definitely worth learning more. Education is power, so it’s important to be educated on what the LIHTC program is and how it is administered. Just yelling NIMBY is not very effective, particularly given Church Hill’s NIMBY reputation. The VHDA website has lots of info.

Juliellen 01/22/2017 at 5:22 PM

Thank you Mary Anne Conmmy. The Fulton community came together and identified the need for senior housing in the Greater Fulton’s Future a few years ago. If this is senior housing, I believe it would receive support here, as long as it is well-designed for the residents and the community. It also has to be a good location for the residents–with access to services and excellent management. It could result in sidewalks and other improvements for the entire neighborhood. Working with the developers instead of automatically against them before knowing what the plans are would go far in creating places that meet the needs of the community–the whole community. There’s still more to learn about the project and the track record of the developer before making a judgment. There are lots of resources out there, and it will be up to someone with more free time than me to go do the research. Start with the facts and go from there.

Anthony Albert caprara 01/22/2017 at 8:31 PM

Curious whether the author or the “informed reader” contacted the Humanities of Charleston or newbill for a statement. Seems an easy thing to do. ( If such contact had been made I’d assume it would’ve been mentioned and that no reply was the result or was they reply not in line with the result this article might desire? )
Also, some comments referenced the project resembling a prison and other failed projects. Was a rendition presented?

The neighborhood at Dove Street was rather well done. Curious if any specific data is available in regards fs to crime and the prevalence of gun fire

this article is at best neglegent, or I fear at worst purposely witholding information that would compromise an agenda.

Shlomo Shekelberg 01/22/2017 at 8:41 PM

So it’s affordable housing right? Everyone wants to know how can we get low-crime low-income people in there? Well, that’s pretty tough, income and crime tend to correlate.

I propose we put in high income-low crime into these low-income housing developments. I for one would be willing to live there and I have plenty of friends and family who would be interested.

EastEnder 01/22/2017 at 8:50 PM

@mary anne conmmy.

Are you serious? I live in an area of Church Hill filled with folks who are carpenters, plumbers, teachers, etc. We live in the neighborhood because we could afford it. Everyone is trying to live their lives the best they can. We did not choose to live here because we wanted some kind of exotic diversity experience that the Fan couldn’t offer us.

Also, I think many of the criticisms directed at this 82-unit apartment complex are motivated by the lack of transparency as it relates to city politicians not talking to community residents about big projects such as this one.

Given that research after research suggests that the concentration of poverty does not bode well for the creation of good safe communities, and given the city’s focus on breaking up Creighton Court, why wouldn’t people be suspicious and/or taken aback by creating yet another low income housing project?

Also, the mismanagement of Ashler Oaks Apartment complex on Jennie Scher Road(a 250 unit all section 8 housing development managed by a company based out of Miami, Florida) and the high incidence of crime there, and in other low-income housing development projects run by private out of town companies in Richmond, would lead people to be very leery of these kinds of development plans.

John M 01/22/2017 at 9:20 PM

@anthony – as stated above, I contacted Newbille but haven’t heard back yet.

Also, the post initially included a rendering of the Lambert Landing project that had been proposed for the adjacent property last year. This monolith is what I think folks we’re refering to as prison like, I pulled it to avoid further confusion.

Dubois2 01/22/2017 at 9:44 PM

I’d like to add a simple question: does anyone think that large scale poverty housing complexes do good for those that live in them?

Chris 01/22/2017 at 9:50 PM

Quick way to bring down the property value.

Eric S. Huffstutler 01/22/2017 at 11:29 PM

I brought this up on another thread and using this example again. Church Hill consists of about 85 acres North of Broad and 118 acres South of Broad (St John’s). That equates to 0.05% of the total land mass of Richmond.

When people move to a protected historic neighborhood, especially one so small compared to the whole picture, why is it so hard for people to preserve it? That should be part of the expected stewardship moving here. Cities like Charleston, New Orleans’ Vieux Carré, Georgetown, even Haight-Ashbury, to name a few, can grasp the concept so why can’t we? You can have a diversity of people… that is a given. But, that diversity of people should be on the same song page when it comes to preserving the historic fabric of a neighborhood they live in.

That said, part of the issue is progress. Progress by way of revitalizing the neighborhood from it former stigma of being a high crime ghetto. I am sure some oldtimers here can vouch for that. This kind of moving forward must include gentrification or blight will take over and buildings destroyed because of it, countering the task of preserving our historic neighborhoods. Some of the oldest neighborhoods in the state of Virginia and the entire USA. Think of just how many historic structures have been saved since the 1980s due to gentrification.

Trying not to sound too politically incorrect, and it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to understand this. Low income and high crime has always gone hand-in-hand (the figures tell this). High crime leads to people moving away which in turn leads to blight (the “white flight” of the 1960s-1970s is an example leading to a lot of Church Hill being boarded up by the 1980s). Blight leads to low property value and then we are regressing rather than progressing… in this one-half of one percent size plot of land mass in Richmond. The same for other protected districts, including Oakwood-Chimborazo.

We have come a long way in the past 50 years. But unfortunately, there are still problems to work on that would cause opposition, or make the idea of moving away an option for some, if demographic changes are forced upon people.


Tricia Dunlap 01/23/2017 at 8:13 AM

The filing date on the demolition permit is 2/18/2016. Was it filed then and unnoticed until now? Has it moved forward in the 11 months since it was filed? Or has it been abandoned?

John M 01/23/2017 at 8:19 AM

@Tricia Just come to my attention last week. I believe that the approval from the VHDA is recent.

Anti-NIMBY 01/23/2017 at 8:23 AM

I had a lengthy conversation with the developer of this project. They have not completed the purchase. The project is proposed to be 80+ units at 40% of AMI – income restricted to $29,600 and below.

Staff at the CAR (Chen) advised the developer that they could demolish the trolley barn as it is not considered a contributing structure, and not historically significant to the adjacent OHD.

This is within spitting distance of Ashley Oaks, another LIHTC property with a rising crime rate, and a stone’s throw from a dilapidated RRHA community. The East End of Richmond already warehouses socioeconomically disadvantaged citizens of Richmond with over 50% of the City’s affordable housing stock.

It is inappropriate to continue to concentrate poverty down the hill, in predominately African-American neighborhoods that already lack amenities like schools, public transit, open space, grocery stores, and are considered food deserts.

Public transit at this location is TERRIBLE. In looking at GRTC’s trip planner, a resident of this proposed community can walk 7 blocks to catch a bus that would drop them off four blocks from the nearest grocery store. Or, walk about four blocks, across the tracks the Ashley Oaks, and hop on the bus for 45 minutes and be dropped off at the Farm Fresh at 25th and Main streets; of course this schedule only runs until 10:50 am.

Eric S. Huffstutler 01/23/2017 at 9:01 AM

The project for lower income housing is welcome. The architecture design is horrible. The location is inappropriate. And the loss of a historic property is unacceptable.

I am a bit concerned with Chen’s casual attitude towards the Trolley Shed building. But at the same time, it is not in any protected district. An issue that needs to be addressed to encompass more areas and eliminate doughnut holes.

Neighbor 01/23/2017 at 9:15 AM

Has anyone other than John reached out to Newbille or planning department about this? It’s my understanding, after asking around, that the developer is waiting to close on the property until all their permits are approved by the City. I don’t know how to look to see if they have any other permits or plan of development in que there. Anyone? This development is going to set this community back many years of progress.

#35 – great points about lack of amenities in this location. Terrible location for low income housing

Jason S. 01/23/2017 at 10:16 AM

Income diversity in the community is a good thing. How we go about managing that balance throughout the city, not just in the East End, is certainly a complicated and arduous task. But there shouldn’t be any debate over whether low-income citizens are entitled to housing opportunities in Church Hill.

The mention of Charleston’s historic preservation as it relates to income dispersion is extremely questionable. I speak from a wealth of experience when I say that Charleston is no shining beacon of light where those two topics intersect. And I chuckled when I saw New Orleans mentioned, as that city ranks second worst in the United States when it comes to income inequality.

I feel like a few of the comments above have some veiled, underlying stank on them. You know what kinda stank I’m talking about.

DerekW 01/23/2017 at 10:22 AM

No way to put it other than…. Hideous!!

kay9 01/23/2017 at 10:26 AM

I’m no expert regarding the city’s permits and inspections website but, after review- it appears that the plan of development was “under review” and expired in December. I would assume- and I may be wrong- but wouldn’t a develop of this scale require review by zoning, planning and surrounding neighbors?

I would assume that nearby neighbors on Broad, the Lofty and others would be highly opposed to having a low-income, high density project dumped into their back yards.

Let the neighborhood take 5 steps back?

This development would have a significant, negative impact on property values surrounding it.

Neighbor 01/23/2017 at 10:43 AM

This is a terrible location for this project. There are absolutely no amenities nearby as someone above stated. No access to public transportation, no proximity to a decent grocery store and in VERY close proximity to other low income, subsidized housing developments. This doens’t serve anyone well: not the community or the future residents of this project!

Doing some digging online, this person should be contacted about why low income housing tax credits were approved for such a terrible location: Based on her profile, she is a “tax allocation specialist in Richmond”

I’ve already sent her an email. You may want to as well if you feel strongly about this.

Dubois2 01/23/2017 at 11:06 AM

Jason S,

all the rest of it aside,(who is entitled to what, veiled racism and classism on CHPN, etc) why would adding another medium sized low-income housing project in the east end be “income diversity”? We got projects. Lots and lots of projects. We have poverty.

Secondly, why would we support the making of another warehouse-style project primed to become another Pruitt-Igoe? Let’s just put it like this for the sake of clarity: if we cared about poor people why would we make opportunities for housing primarily inside proscribed spaces functionally available only to other poor people?

Eric S. Huffstutler 01/23/2017 at 11:16 AM

No one here are denying people with lower income proper housing. You simply miss the point. People who move to historic districts should be aware that it is not without certain obligations to uphold (stewardship), including promoting and respecting the overall fabric of the area you chose to move to. If you blindly move into such a community expecting to make radical changes, then you were misinformed.

Don’t force your indifference on others towards preservation of a historic district by wanting to build low income housing in a community where houses go for $400k and up. Or built modern non conformant structures as infills in protected areas. There are many people living here for years that have spent a lot of time, money, and effort with their homes to conform and rebuild the community and want to protect their investment. Respect them as well. If you don’t agree, then living in a historic neighborhood is not right for you and there are many other communities within Richmond that may be better suit your needs. There are other places that this project could also be built where it is more needed.

Jason S. 01/23/2017 at 11:29 AM

Well first of all, I’m not advocating this project. I don’t particularly like the location, the design, how it was handled. I’m just chiming in on the discussion. How we talk about our neighbors matters. I feel like when people say they didn’t move here for “exotic diversity experience” and things like that, that it’s worth discussing. I don’t care fore this project at all, but I stand by what I said.

Jason S. 01/23/2017 at 11:36 AM

Eric, I respect what you are saying about protecting your investment and the historic value and architecture of Church Hill. I do. I really, really honestly do.

I would just encourage you to consider that there are a lot of folks that have been in this community long before houses started selling for $400k. I’m just advocating that we discuss how to best serve those citizens, the ones who are doing well financially and those who aren’t.

Clay Street 01/23/2017 at 11:39 AM

Following Neighbor @41, I just emailed Hope Rutter and copied Mayor Stoney and Cynthia Newbille. Will let you know what I hear back.

Dear Ms. Rutter,

I am an East End resident and am wanting to know more about how this property was approved for low income tax credits?

This location is, in my opinion as a longtime resident and property owner, not suited for high-density low-income housing. There is already a Section 8 housing development a few blocks away (Ashley Oaks) and an RRHA development across the street from that. My understanding is that the city does not want to further concentrate poverty in the city of Richmond.

Concentrating 82 low-income units at this location is not appropriate for the community, as the residents would be extremely underserved by GRTC. There are no amenities nearby, no grocery store in walkable distance, and no sidewalks. Other questions would pertain to schools—would there be an impact survey on how this would affect Chimborazo Elementary and MLK Middle? There could be anywhere from 50-150 new students with the addition of this development.

An outside developer profiting off of the concentration of poverty would be very much against how many in the neighborhood want development to move forward. Concentrating poverty and corralling people into a hillside that abuts other low-income concentrations and is cut off from access to the broader city makes things, in our opinion, worse and not better.

Can you please explain how this project would be developed and what the process was for approval of the low-income tax credits? Does this project have a sponsor that has shepherded it through the permitting process?

Here is a community conversation about the proposed development of this property.

Looking forward to hearing from you, I will let other members of the community know what you share with me. We are really at a loss as to knowing what this is all about, and Councilperson Newbille has not, I believe, been in touch regarding questions put forth by others early last year re: the same project. There has been zero signage on the property that would let community residents know about a comment period or any other meetings related to the development, so we are feeling a lack of transparency.

Clay Street 01/23/2017 at 11:41 AM

^^ I included a hyperlink to this CHPN thread in the email to her ^^

Jason S. 01/23/2017 at 11:44 AM

Very well put, Clay Street.

Eric S. Huffstutler 01/23/2017 at 11:54 AM

I wonder if this outside developer understands the dynamics of the community, both where it is proposed and for the neighboring communities?

Has a study been done to see if there is a need elsewhere nearby that could benefit from this, and also accessible to the GRTC?

Juliellen 01/23/2017 at 12:40 PM

By-right zoning would allow the project. I do not know the zoning status. One would hope that the developers would inform and engage the community, but they do not have to. The Low-Income Housing Tax Credit program actually is a moderate income program unless project-based rental assistance is secured; otherwise, the rents will be too high for residents with very low incomes. Project-based rental assistance would come from the housing authority, and is limited and difficult for developers to secure. So you can find out what the scoop is from VHDA and from the housing authority, but the city is pretty much out of the picture if the zoning allows the project by right.

Eric S. Huffstutler 01/23/2017 at 1:13 PM

@50 Juliellen, in 2014 when the property was being sold, it was zoned then as R-53 Multi-housing. The City Assessor’s show it as R-63 – Residential (Multi-family Urban)

mary 01/23/2017 at 1:18 PM

#22…avoid BHC at all costs

Juliellen 01/23/2017 at 1:29 PM

Mary, BHC is not the developer here.

Eric S. Huffstutler 01/23/2017 at 1:59 PM

@52 mary, the development rendering shows “The WODA Group, Inc” out of Westerville, Ohio, as the developer and the owner, Lambert Landing LP. WODA mainly builds and renovates buildings for large apartment complexes.

Lambert Landing Limited Partnership shows active as of February 11, 2016 with registered agent: Saundra R Hirth, 11 South 12th St Ste 403, Richmond, VA 23219-0000

2016 LOW INCOME HOUSING TAX CREDIT PROGRAM: RESERVATION APPLICATIONS shows Development Contact person: Gregory Mustric (614) 396-3200 and the Pool requested is $835,000

John M 01/23/2017 at 2:15 PM

@Eric – The Lambert Landing project was proposed for the adjacent property, where the tailers used to be. This is separate, new project.

Eric S. Huffstutler 01/23/2017 at 2:22 PM

@55 John, so the Lambert Landing project is the one that was nixed? No wonder this is confusing. Is there a way to put of a map outlining the properties in question and which are no longer? An which interests are involved?

John M 01/23/2017 at 2:29 PM

The large vacant properties north of that are owned by Frank Wood, the vacant properties to the south at owned by 3012 Park Avenue LLC.

Eric S. Huffstutler 01/23/2017 at 2:35 PM

I see now, Humanities Foundation out of South Carolina.
Here is a project they finished up recently in Prince George and the design fits in better than what the Lambert Landing one looked.

mary 01/23/2017 at 2:45 PM

From Style Weekly – “Street Logic: A Memo to Richmond’s Incoming Administration From the City Itself”

mary 01/23/2017 at 2:47 PM

#53, yes…I read that in several posts here and then thought of a caution when you wrote “Either way, I’d much rather see BHC (or similar) organization as developer.”

ray 01/23/2017 at 4:10 PM

Cynthia Newbille respond to anyone yet?

I see she’s on Twitter(or maybe one of the Council PR people is doing it for her)along the left hand side so she clearly has the ability to communicate when she wants to.

Paul 01/23/2017 at 4:21 PM

I don’t think people commenting on this topic in CHPN are against affordable housing. But the density and form of the project are, like I said in comment #6, of the nature that has been proven to be a failure by low income housing experts. Too much concentrated poverty. No defensible space which invites crime.

I think stacked townhomes would make more sense. That would probably push the density down to maybe 30-40 units on the site. But I think it would make for a better safer and community that better sets up residents to thrive. I’d also suggest that sidewalks, on at least one side of the street, are needed on Government road and Glenwood to connect this new development to amenities at the top of the hill like the Chimbo Mart.

People in Richmond rail against the quality of schools all the time. The low performance of the new-ish MLK Middle school demonstrate that the caliber of facilities are not the core issue. It is the poverty people. The conditions that disadvantaged communities and created/maintained the existing poverty are not easy to overcome overnight. But we are fools if we just allow some out of town developer to plop down something that repeats all the worst failures. We have to learn from mistakes. So let’s not let it happen just because of greed or some politicians desire to have ribbon cuttings. Let’s make our voice heard and hold them accountable.

Clay Street’s open letter to Hope Rutter was a step in the right direction. But I believe she may live in Mineral VA, so I definitely think we need to be vocal about this to Councilwoman Newbille as well.

Nate Horjus 01/23/2017 at 7:26 PM

I’ve written councilwoman Newbille. Anyone that has an opinion should write as well. The link should be :

Jason S. 01/24/2017 at 9:21 AM

Right on, Paul.

Neighbor 01/24/2017 at 9:29 AM

I hope more people here are contacting Newbille and VHDA about this. Someone is coming right into our backyard and under our noses doing development that completely contradicts the direction of where the community AND the city leadership wants our area to go. The fact that VHDA would approve this project without consulting with the community or local councilperson is absolutely insane. And it will continue to happen unless the process changes.

James 01/24/2017 at 9:56 AM

Paul’s comments,#63, seem a reasonable starting point. The comments reference MLK middle school/poverty concentration are spot-on.

Are there are other reasonably priced land parcels in Henrico, Chesterfield, and City of Richmond that could/should be considered?

Nia 01/24/2017 at 4:03 PM

As a Glenwood Ave homeowner, I can sit on my porch and watch the lower income individuals from Ashley Oaks, etc., walk up the hill to get to the Chimbo, no sidewalks, dodging cars traveling well in excess of 35 mph, overgrown gutters, etc. It’s really a travesty that the city would consider approving yet another concentrated project of poor individuals in a remote corner with no services.

Wouldn’t that old Trolley Barn make a great Trader Joe’s ?

Clay Street 01/24/2017 at 4:10 PM

I just received this from Hope Rutter in response to my email last week:

As of today we have not received an application for Low Income Housing Tax Credits for the Property you are indicating. The applications competing for the 2017 cycle of Tax Credits are due on March 3, 2017. Preliminary Rankings of those applications submitted to will give which properties may possibly receive credits, these will be published on the VHDA website on or around May 3, 2017. After a public comment period and rebuttal period from May 3 to May 17 the final determination of awards will be published as Final Rankings on May 24, 2017.

All VHDA Low Income Housing Tax Credit procedures and schedules can be found on our website here.


Hope Rutter

Senior Tax Credit Allocation Officer
Work Hours
7:45-4:30 M-TH
8:00-3:30 F

Clay Street 01/24/2017 at 4:17 PM

OH WAIT I SPOKE TOO SOON! She followed up with this email right after her first reply:

I apologize I have realized that the property that you are referencing is not the one I originally thought it was. This development, Glenwood Ridge Apartments was awarded credits in the 2016 cycle of Tax Credits. The public comment period for this round was from May 3, 2016 to May 17, 2016. On September 20, 2016 at Virginia Housing Development Authority on Belvidere St., a public forum was held for comments about developments receiving credits, this forum was announced in the newspaper two weeks prior to the forum.

All applications can be viewed on our website if you would like to see the information they presented. You will need to first register here to gain access to the website and applications.

Again I apologize for the mistake,

Hope Rutter

Neighbor 01/24/2017 at 4:32 PM

“The forum was announced in the newspaper”?? That was the only public notification? She has to be joking…

Clay Street 01/24/2017 at 4:56 PM

^^^ this is the registration link she shared in the above where one can register to view Tax Credit Applications:

John M 01/24/2017 at 5:20 PM

I’ve applied for access to see the application, says it’ll take 24 hours to be processed.

Clay Street 01/24/2017 at 5:37 PM

@Neighbor #71

I know right? Really ridiculous.

Curious to see what application says.

mary 01/24/2017 at 5:58 PM

Given the possibility there will be no response from Ms. Newbille, this meeting scheduled for next week should give interested persons the opportunity to have her address the issue. Not only will she be part of the meet but “up dates on our 7th District Projects” is part of the agenda:

The next MPACT meeting will be held on Tuesday, January 31st at 6:00PM-7:30PM

Place: EDI- 701 North 25th Street

This will be a joint meeting with the 7th District Council woman, Cynthia Newbille, School Representative-Nadine Marsh Carter and MPACT Manager-Zane Robinson
· Other agenda items will include updates from our Public Safety Officials.

· Senior’s Tax Release Information

· Up dates on our 7th District Projects

Mars 01/24/2017 at 10:03 PM

This is ridiculous. I own a house across the street and have received no notification of this development. I don’t subscribe to the newspaper nor review it with enough earnest to have caught this development. I’m currently working out of the area and haven’t been around much. As of last night, I’m planning on listing the house in March. Best of luck avoiding this, the third poorly thought out development since I’ve moved here. I will join you and try to fight it but you can’t fight a corrupt system. I honestly felt that the area was coming up with the brewery and trail so close by. Mrs. Newbille should not have been elected as she cannot answer e-mails during the day at work. Better yet, perhaps this indicates a vital flaw in our local government. Council members don’t get paid enough for it to be a full time job. They then have to get other jobs and accept bribes to make a living.

Nia, I’m sorry you moved to the neighborhood. I’ve been in it for the last 10 years and noticed the same things you mentioned. Our street doesn’t receive basic city services. Have you seen our street when it rains with no drainage? How about the potholes? I have been able to make no progress. Let’s face it. Money talks. It’s just not speaking for us.

Neighbor 01/24/2017 at 10:39 PM

#76 Mars and everyone else. Make sure you contact VHDA and express to them just how poor of a decision it was to award these tax credits and approve this project. They have to understand that they’re screwing the people they’re meant to serve (the poor) by letting them live in this future development with no access to services. Maybe they can retract credit awards?

Paul 01/25/2017 at 7:04 AM

I don’t really have any expertise on how projects like this navigate the myriad of approval processes to get developed. But the emails “Clay Street” shared from VHDA talk purely about a tax credit.

Intuitively I can’t see how simply earning the right to a VHDA tax credit suddenly makes this project unstoppable or unalterable. Especially for a development of this size. There has to be other review processes they also need approval from. So let’s not give up on the fight/cause.

Clay Street 01/25/2017 at 9:40 AM

@Mary #75, I got those emails too, I put it on my calendar and plan to attend

@Paul #78 I am with you, I have zero expertise on this and hope someone else can step in and answer that. Is a chicken & the egg kind of situation–does a developer get approval for tax credits first, and then try to get the project through the city, or is it vice versa?

I think it’s important to ask Newbille (and ALL of our city council reps): how can we achieve more transparency on these issues? How does it work? What measures are in place to provide information to the general public, and are they doing their job sufficiently, or can (should)they be updated and improved?

Seems people want to have access to more and better info than they are able to access easily, even by navigating the websites that are part of the apparatus of development.

Clay Street 01/25/2017 at 12:20 PM

I replied to her and got an additional response this morning, the exchange is below:

Ms. Rutter,

Thanks for your response, it’s appreciated. I have shared it on the community thread that has been discussing this.

We are not feeling like the overall process is transparent, and we are committed to learning more about how the VHDA low income tax credit application and approval process works in conjunction with city planning for high-densitydevelopment– we will be asking questions about this at next week’s MPACT meeting here in Richmond.

I understand and encourage you to go to our website to see the Qualified Allocation Plan (QAP) and Manual to understand the application and development requirements for Virginia Low Income Housing Tax Credits. The link is


Hope Rutter

Senior Tax Credit Allocation Officer
Work Hours
7:45-4:30 M-TH
8:00-3:30 F

Hill Runner 01/25/2017 at 1:09 PM

@78/79 The area is zoned R-63 and has been since 2010. This zoning allows the developer to build multi-family housing without significant public review. They will still likely have to get a site plan and building approvals but those activities are typically administrative. If you are interested in the zoning status of different parcels the city’s GIS zoning map ( is a great resource. The city’s GIS site ( has some other useful resources such as historic district maps and Land Use Projects Map. The Land Use Projects map ( is useful for seeing what projects are seeking exceptions to existing zoning.

Juliellen 01/25/2017 at 1:36 PM

The LIHTC program is a program of the IRS and is administered by the state housing agency, in this case by VHDA. Essentially, tax credits are allocated to a developer through an annual competitive application process. The developer sells those credits through a process called syndication which provides capital for the project, thereby reducing the amount that needs to be borrowed–and thereby reducing the debt service, which allows for lower rent because the borrowed amount is less than it would be without funds raised by the sale of the tax credits. In exchange, the developer has to keep the project affordable to moderate income residents for a period of time (last time I checked it was 15 years).

If the zoning is permissible, the developer does not have to inform the city at the application stage, although it’s probably the right thing to do. I seriously doubt that Cynthia Newbille and the city planning department are hiding anything…the project has probably not come across their desks yet. It will for construction approvals, but not for zoning approval since it appears that the zoning is permissible.

Publication in the newspaper is standard for public notification–whether or not it’s the best way to get the word out is not the point. It’s probably best to go get some info on it (John M already has requested the tax credit application) before jumping to conclusions and fighting without knowing what you are fighting.

The undertones of not wanting “those people” are disconcerting to say the least, especially because no one here knows about the project. LIHTC are aimed at moderate income residents unless project-based rental assistance is allocated, which would come from the housing authority (RRHA). Project-based rental assistance is limited, so it until you see the application, there’s really no way of knowing the details. In other projects, developers have been required to upgrade streets, provide sidewalks, improve landscaping, etc. No idea if the city will require similar improvements of the developer or not. Just because the financing comes from the LIHTC program does not necessarily mean that the project is detrimental to the neighborhood. Find out more and then decide how to proceed.

One question: would you support a luxury apartment project with the same number of units at this site? Something to ponder.

John M 01/25/2017 at 2:08 PM

The Glenwood Ridge VHDA application is here:

There are no renderings, but a ton of info.

I briefly spoke with Tracey Doran (President of Humanities Foundation)( They are aware that there is neighborhood concern, and she spoke of working to set up a neighborhood meeting in the near future.

For reference, you can see their other townhome communities here:

Ian 01/25/2017 at 2:52 PM

Just spoke with councilwoman Newbille’s legislative assistant over the phone and was told that neither she nor the city have received anything about the project and had not even heard of it until the VHDA credits approval. She is meeting with the city attorney late this week to find out what they can about the project and what the process will be for addressing this project since the developer went through the back door and applied to the state without talking to the city. He says there should be community meetings once they know what the project actually is but that they wont’t know the actual process until after talking to the city attorney.

Sounds like they should have at least some more information by that Monday meeting.

John M 01/25/2017 at 2:57 PM

I’d like to thank everyone who has contributed to this conversation, we collectively know a lot more than we did 3 days ago.

Hill Runner 01/25/2017 at 3:47 PM

No renderings in the application, but there is a site plan on page 180. Two 3-story buildings with a parking lot in the middle and a parking level below one of the buildings (this might make it 4 story).

Clay Street 01/25/2017 at 4:17 PM

Wow, that is a huge document, almost 200 pages. Some takeaways from the 15 minutes it took me to give it a cursory viewing:

-two building, 3 stories (as Hill Runner states above, there is a top-down site rendering on p 180).
-surface parking between the buildings, and also parking under building #1
-re: traffic and cars–looks like one point of ingress from Glenwood Ave and one point of egress back onto Glenwood Ave
-this kind of development is described as “garden apartment” (so these will not be townhomes–this is low-rise and described as being in the “Arts & Crafts” style)
-82 units: twelve 1 BR, forty-six 2BR, and twenty-four 3BR)
-rents range from $450-$975/mo
-total of 78,750 rentable sq ft, so average of 960 sq ft/unit
-100% low-income development (42 units for income level at 50% of area median income, and 40 units for income level at 60% of area median income)
-the application says that this gets extra points because it’s in a tract that has <10% poverty–this seems surprising until you see the tract is inclusive of pretty much only Chimborazo Park and this property
-this will be LEED certified "Earthcraft Premium"
-preference given to Section 8
-central laundry and community meeting space
-additional points given due to being 1/4 mile from bus stop

My questions would still involve sidewalks, school impact, and infrastructure like a traffic light at Glenwood & Govt Rd. Glenwood Ave gets a lot of foot traffic up toward Chimbo and it's currently pretty narrow–having a lot more cars going in and out and also parking on the street on Glenwood Ave would be very impactful.

re: Juliellen I would absolutely feel very distrustful of an 82 unit luxury development too. A lot of the same questions would have to be answered, although I feel that there would be fewer issues related to neighborhood schools with a luxury development.

we all know–this is a tight and weird little corner of the neighborhood, and cramming 82 units and cars there will definitely have an impact. The additional concentration of poverty is frankly disconcerting, too. Pushing poor people into a corner of Richmond that already has a lot of poor people with limited access to food and transportation options just seems like a cruddy vision of help and support.

Paul 01/25/2017 at 4:24 PM

>> “The undertones of not wanting “those people” are disconcerting to say the least, especially because no one here knows about the project.”

Most of the comments in the thread seem concerned about concentrated poverty. Which is a model that is proven not to work. 80 units is quite a bit of concentration. And there was the Lambert Landing posting CHPN posted early last year. Which almost makes it seem like two different developers are each trying to create large low income developments in this vicinity. Which could mean 160+ units…

>> “LIHTC are aimed at moderate income residents unless project-based rental assistance is allocated, which would come from the housing authority (RRHA).”
The words Low Income are right in the name of the tax credit. Forgive me, but for the time being I’m going to take those words as indicative rather than your suggestion it is actually “Moderate Income”.

>> “Find out more and then decide how to proceed.”
This has all been very cloak and dagger so far. For a development of this size I’m not of the opinion the public should have to troll government websites to see if something might be on the docket. We should be engaged by the developer. Our at least the local councilmember and community associations should be who can inturn engage us. If it was two fourplexes – I wouldn’t care. But 85 units is a big deal. So yeah, we want to find out more but transparency is needed. It is rational to be skeptical initially about things that sound bad on the surface. Especially after that prison-like rendering we saw for Lambert Landing. I can’t speak for others but my position is always malleable if presented with honest facts (not alternative facts).

>> “One question: would you support a luxury apartment project with the same number of units at this site? Something to ponder.”
Concentrated poverty has negative externalities in a way that a luxury apartment doesn’t. Both for the community at large and the residents of the development. So it is naive to pose these things as equivalent. I’d be supportive of 85 units at scattered sites across the East End. But I think it is right to proceed skeptically given all we know about past failed larger housing sites like Creighton, etc..

mary 01/25/2017 at 5:39 PM

John, you wrote on Jan 22 that you had reached out to Newbille. What did she say/write?

Eric S. Huffstutler 01/25/2017 at 5:48 PM

Yes John, we (and I) have learned a lot with everyone’s persistence. Even though the application documents only show a top draft view of the layout, it seems to follow their other designs built here in Virginia. All are 4-story with a townhouse look and have a lot more curb appeal than the rigid block that has all the personality of a prison.

I am a bit taken aback though with Newbille’s comment of not knowing about this at all until the VHDA Credit Approvals. I’m not confident that she is aware of what is going on within her own district, even when people are vocal about it? She need to be more involved with Social Media as well..including here at CHPN.

Juliellen 01/25/2017 at 5:55 PM

Clay Street, thanks for the summary–nice job, and it helps everyone. Now you have a real starting point.

Paul, I agree…wouldn’t it be nice if everyone told us everything? But they don’t so it’s up to us to go about finding out the info that we want. I attempted to provide info on how the LIHTC program works because it is pretty confusing unless you’ve been in it,and even then it’s not straightforward. Others also have provided information and education to readers.

One of the frustrations of mission-driven non-profit developers who really want to provide decent and affordable housing to very low income people is that the LIHTC is mis-named because it doesn’t really work for people with very low incomes. Even though the name states Low-Income, it’s more accurate to call it a moderate or workforce housing program. People who live in public housing are not going to be able to afford rents of $450 – $975 per month. Hell, my mortgage is right in the middle of that, and I’m on the higher income side of things for a single person. With rents like those, this is not what many people here seem to fear–another Creighton or Mosby.

My question about the luxury units was to get us–myself included–thinking about their motivations for supporting or opposing this project. If it has to do with traffic, fine, but that would be an issue (even more of an issue) with a luxury project. If it has to do with the number of units (regardless of income), fine…that’s a legit concern. Schools–yeah, if it is to be a family project, which it looks like since it has multiple units with multiple bedrooms. Senior projects typically do not have multiple bedrooms (some 2BR, but not 3-BR). What if it gets modified into a senior project, which is something that we really need here?…still there might be issues but some of the issues about schools might be addressed. If your concerns focus on what is best for potential residents, be clear on that. Just what IS best for potential residents who can pay $450 – $975 rents? I’m not taking one side or the other, just trying to provide information and to be honest about motivations. Hopefully others will do the same.

Meeting with the developer will be much more effective if you have the facts straight. Maybe they will be flexible on the number of units, the unit mix, providing open space, providing community amenities like sidewalks and street improvements, landscaping, making it into a senior project…who knows.

Clay Street 01/25/2017 at 6:21 PM

Man, I just can’t stay off this thread…

So going back to the beginning and original post, this is about a demo permit, right?

The trolley barn is going to be demolished by a contractor, Connelly Builders, Inc. (permit app states this)

The building and property are still owned by Matthew Logan and Lee Johnson.

However, a quick google search shows that Connelly Builders has been a partner in MANY Humanities projects.

The property has not yet been sold or transferred. The VHDA app says that this has to happen by April 2017 (not sure why this is but that date is in there).

Anyone with more info, please share, thanks!

John M 01/25/2017 at 6:55 PM

@mary – no word

Paul 01/25/2017 at 7:30 PM

@Clay/Juliellen – Clay, thanks for the detailed breakdown in #87. My last reply to Juliellen was written while Clay’s informative post was still sitting in the moderation queue.

Clay Street 01/25/2017 at 9:23 PM

The app said no senior housing. Or, at the very least, they are not looking for credits from creating senior housing.

Section 8 has a preference here (per the app) and thus assistance-dependent applicants will be given priority, meaning that those rents that are outlined in the VHDA doc will be subsidized by vouchers. I am sorry, butI don’t think these are going to be occupied by millenials? These are families with kids who will need to be accommodated by Chimbo Elementary and MLK Middle.

We need an impact study on how this will work with our currently over-stressed public schools before the neighborhood can accept this development, in my opinion.

Paul 01/26/2017 at 2:12 PM

@Clay #95 – once again thanks for your analysis. And yes, I thought Juliellen was looking at the proposed rents through rose colored glasses. Doesn’t surprise me that you were able to deduct by analyzing the application that section 8 would have preference and subsidize the rents.

This is too big a development to be all lower income folks mixed with section 8 folks. Concentrated poverty doesn’t work.

Ian 01/26/2017 at 3:56 PM

I think we should give Councilperson Newbille the benefit of the doubt here in terms of being inclusive and wanting to seek public comment. As @ Clay Street says in #92, “The property has not yet been sold or transferred” and the developer has apparently not applied for any sort of permits to actually build the thing.

The state *has* agreed to reserve tax credits for the project, but that doesn’t say anything about whether it will actually get built. All the developers have done with the city is apply for permission to demolish a structure they do not yet own.

Given all of those speculative elements I am inclined to believe that no one in city government had information on this project before now and wait to see what the Councilperson has learned by next week’s meeting.

Juliellen 01/26/2017 at 5:27 PM

Ian, exactly. Paul, there is a difference between project-based section 8 and vouchers–looks like you might want to do a little more homework. Understanding is key; drawing conclusions with incomplete information and misunderstanding will just backfire.

Neighbor 01/26/2017 at 6:21 PM

People. WAKE UP! An out of town developer who doesn’t give a rats ass about our community is coming in here to build something that will set this whole area back 10 years. Affordable housing is badly needed. But concentrated low income housing that accepts Section 8 vouchers is nothing more than a fancy way of saying “projects”.

Research how lihtc developers work and how they make their money. They make it on the front end when they sell the credits. Which means these guys will make money after they build this apartment building and then won’t care much how this place is run after that.

And just because they havent’ closed on it yet, doesn’t mean this deal won’t happen. By the looks of it, it will. They have the zoning, they have the credits, they’re just working their permits through the city. And the people that should have been aware of this (council members, planning department, Mayor’s office) were and are still all asleep at the wheel.

Paul 01/26/2017 at 7:12 PM

@98 – I’ve lived immediately amongs both types of section 8 buildings (project and voucher) and homeless shelters for many years before I moved from downtown DC to Church Hill. Less than 2 blocks from each. I basically ran a community blog similar to CHPN for my neighborhood for 7 years. I interacted with people of all incomes, ethnicities, backgrounds who participated in the local neighborhood association meetings, advisory neighborhood commission meetings, and police service area meetings… I have empathy for people from all walks of life. But clearly housing policies of the past have disadvantaged several generations. We know better now and should not repeat those past mistakes when better methods have been identified like mixed income, scattered site, etc..

You seem to feel like people are making leaps to conclusions about this development. I could say the same for you in terms of the leaps you are making in evaluating the merit of your neighbors input/comments…

mary 01/29/2017 at 9:03 AM

John, would you please share Newbille’s response to your Jan 22 inquiry.

urbngrilla 01/30/2017 at 8:17 AM

To the folks concerned about this housing project: now you know why Union Hill has been wrestling with Better Housing Coalition about the Venable Street/Citadel of Hope Project with 52 apartment units, all LIHTC. It’s pretty much the same deal as this; all based on getting the tax credits to turn over to investors. Fight folks, fight hard.

Megan 01/30/2017 at 1:31 PM

Wanted to share the response I received back on whether this would be discussed at the 7th District Meeting from Samuel Patterson on 1/27 (not my formatting or grammatical errors):

“On behalf of Councilwoman Newbille, let me take this time to thank you for your email regarding this project. It will not be discussed-Councilwoman Newbille met with the City Attornery tomorrow morning re: this matter, and will be exmining this project, as well as next steps. Pursuant to that meeting, Councilwoman Newbille will apprise you and other East End 7th District residents who expressed concerns re: the project re: status and next steps.”

Not sure what happened on Friday with the attorney…

Coqui 01/30/2017 at 7:56 PM

This trolley barn is an important piece of Richmond’s story. According to the archives of the old VEPCO, Richmond was the first city in the nation to have an electric street car system.
In fact is was this enterprise that created the original virginia Electric And Power Cco. In the 1880’s.
Richmond’s cache is its history. Can’t a smart city find a way to capitalize on this significant piece of its history. And enhance the property values around it….increasing the city’s coffer along the way?

mary 01/31/2017 at 9:40 AM

Be advised, as a follow up to #102: I attended a meet in Union Hill not long ago at which Newbille was present. The meeting was about the ‘BHC’ project for Venable and Jessamine Streets and Newbille stated that what ‘BHC’ has proposed for Union Hill is in keeping with her vision for the district. Megan, my congratulations to you for getting any kind of response from Newbille’s office. I’ve communicated off and on for more than 2 years with never an acknowledgement, much less any kind of response.

Church Hill People's News 01/31/2017 at 10:45 AM

A meeting has been set for this for next week

Nia McCabe Strei 01/31/2017 at 12:06 PM

I got a response from the office that hands out the LITCredits. This project received credit approval in 2016 and the developer received more in tax credits than he paid in taxes. See below

Ms. Strei,

I apologize for the confusion you are correct that this development received credits in the 2016 application process. However it is not Church Hill North Phase 2A that is located at the address listed in the permit you reference. The development listed is Glenwood Ridge Apartments and it was awarded credits in the 2016 cycle of Tax Credits. The public comment period for this round was from May 3, 2016 to May 17, 2016. On September 20, 2016 at Virginia Housing Development Authority on Belvidere St., a public forum was held for comments about developments receiving credits, this forum was announced in the newspaper two weeks prior to the forum.All applications can be viewed on our website if you would like to see the information they presented. You will need to first register here to gain access to the website and applications.

Again I apologize for the mistake,


Hope Rutter
Senior Tax Credit Allocation Officer
VHDA 804-343-5574
Work Hours 7:45-4:30 M-TH 8:00-3:30 F

Jason S 01/31/2017 at 12:35 PM

This is a really good, healthy discussion. Looking forward to the meeting next week.

Myrna Carlson 02/01/2017 at 12:27 PM

Can we stop this?

Packed room for public meeting on Glenwood Ridge Apartments - Church Hill People's News | Richmond, Virginia 02/07/2017 at 7:44 PM

[…] The development documents were first brought to Planning and Review on November 23, 2016. Cynthia Newbille was only made aware of the proposal after calls from the community after the demolition permit was recently discussed here. […]

Robert Gordon 02/13/2017 at 12:27 PM

I am trying to research the history of the Trolley Barn – so I’m really interested in item No. 104. Coqi – if you see this could you drop me an email at and let me know where to find the information about the old trolley line.


Trolley barn at Glenwood (1920s) - Church Hill People's News | Richmond, Virginia 02/14/2017 at 6:15 AM

[…] building is facing demolition so that a controversial apartment complex can be built on the […]

What could’ve been for Glenwood Avenue - Church Hill People's News | Richmond, Virginia 02/15/2017 at 7:27 PM

[…] A copy of George Hoddinott’s Masters in Urban and Regional Planning project came in over the digital transom over the weekend, and is particularly interesting given the lackluster proposal for the old trolley barn site. […]

Public meeting set on Glenwood Ridge Apartments - Church Hill People's News | Richmond, Virginia 02/24/2017 at 5:49 PM

[…] The first meeting with Shane Doran from the Humanities Foundation and lawyer T. Preston Lloyd, Jr. of Williams Mullen was hastily organized in early February after the demolition permit for the trolley barn came to light. […]

Ron 04/01/2017 at 12:54 PM

I was unable to attend the meeting on March 30th. Does anyone know what the outcome of the meeting was about this proposed development?

Eric Huffstutler 04/01/2017 at 6:48 PM

@110 Robert Gordon… a bit late answering but if you are interested in the history of the Trolley in Richmond as well as its roots in Church Hill, read my article from the March, 2014 CHA Newsletter that starts on page 18. Here is the CHA link to the archived newsletter in pdf format:

Preservation of trolley barn still an issue for proposed Glenwood Apartments - Church Hill People's News | Richmond, Virginia 09/11/2017 at 5:19 PM

[…] Random discovery of the initial demolition permit for the trolley barn brought proposed development … […]


Leave a Comment

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