Image default
East End News

Richmond votes tonight on Stone Brewing plan to raze Intermediate Terminal building

From Mike Platania at Richmond BizSense:
Photo Credit: Scott Elmquist (sorry, Scott!)

RICHMOND, Va. — The fate of the Fulton neighborhood’s Intermediate Terminal building is expected to be decided Monday night.

Richmond City Council is scheduled to vote at its Monday meeting on whether to allow the demolition of the building at 3101 E. Main St. to make way for a new restaurant and beer garden for Stone Brewing.

The nearly 100-year-old building had been slated to be preserved and renovated for the venue, but Stone and the city last month called for a change in plans, saying engineering tests showed the long-vacant warehouse was too decrepit to be renovated as originally planned.

Read more here!

What do you think?

Do you agree with Style Magazine’s take on the Terminal Warehouse?

Related posts

Reminder: Inlight Richmond is THIS Weekend!

Church Hill People's News

Paving Streets Uniting Fulton

Gustavo
avatar
14 Comment threads
0 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
7 Comment authors
Mike 1Dubois225th ST MikeLLee Recent comment authors

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

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Eric S. Huffstutler
Guest
Eric S. Huffstutler

I am all for saving the structure since it is a unique design but, when the cost of stabilizing and restoring outweighs the value of the building is when you have to make these decisions. How much would it cost to build a replica, if the design is the focal point?

Bill
Guest
Bill

If there is to be new construction smaller than the existing warehouse, why not on open land?
Instead of demo first to add to the cost

BAF
Guest
BAF

Not all unique designs warrant saving. There is nothing especially notable about the design of this building. It’s a utilitarian box. Stop treating every old building like it’s Monticello simply because it’s old. Not all old buildings are historically or aesthetically valuable. This one isn’t.

Lee
Guest
Lee

@BAF – things are often unique precisely because they are utilitarian. I don’t know if it makes sense to save this building or not, but your comment reminds me of a NYC preservation debacle I read about a few years ago: A developer removed all the decorative elements from a building to try to prevent the city from landmarking it (presumably he wanted to tear it down). He was subsequently informed that the layout and functional design of the building, and not it’s aesthetics or ornamentation, were the reason it was historic. The city landmarked the property anyway and he… Read more »

Eric S. Huffstutler
Guest
Eric S. Huffstutler

@3 BAF. Yes, not every building needs to be saved unless it is in a historically protected neighborhood. Just that this building, on stilts you drive under, is a unique and rare remnant of a time when this area, where it sits, was a more active transportation hub for the city. When you are left with only one of something, you do try and protect it.

Eric S. Huffstutler
Guest
Eric S. Huffstutler

@4 Lee, great story!

BAF
Guest
BAF

@3 and @4. OK. But age aside what’s really historic about this? That it’s a warehouse? There are other warehouses nearby (many also blighted) to make us recall the past. Because we can drive under it? We drive under lots of things. Because of the interior layout? That was likely to be gutted in the transition to a restaurant. If it’s blighted—it is—and if it costs more to repair than is feasible—that’s the claim anyway—then there is nothing to be preserved. Blighted “historic” properties that have no prospect for rehabilitation may add to the historic atmosphere (if history is broken… Read more »

L
Guest
L

@BAF – there are plenty of preserved tobacco/cigarette related buildings further up in the bottom, but there isn’t much left in immediate area surrounding this building. The building speaks to the former intensity of use in what is now mostly vacant space. Also, the existing buildings are predominantly from other eras and associated with specific industries, whereas this building is actually representative of the fact that the area was once a busy/active/working waterfront. The other terminal buildings and associated dock structures are long gone, making this building the last or one of the last of something. Again, aesthetics and significant… Read more »

25th ST Mike
Guest
25th ST Mike

BAF is a real “Debbie Downer”

Dubois2
Guest
Dubois2

Can we please bring back a replica of the cement factory:)?

Y’all, i like the building in question, because of memories and such…. and that the road drives through and under it, and that it reeks of industrial purpose…..

But I can make new memories in whatever California Monster beer garden Stone wants to build. It’s a win win.

BAF
Guest
BAF

@9. Yes. I am a real downer for wanting to get rid of a derelict concrete box that is decaying, blighted and that may not be economically feasible to rehabilitate. I am all for rehabbing structures when it’s feasible. But letting it sit there and rot when no one has the funds (or are willing to spend them) to do the work is insane when someone is willing to put the property to more economically-productive use while abating the eyesore. Right now, we need to increase the tax base in the city. Tonight the City raided the public art fund… Read more »

L
Guest
L

This whole thing is starting to sound a bit fishy. The most recent times-dispatch article indicates that the problem isn’t the building, so much as the proposed renovations. Massive amounts of glass, necessitating a massive heating/cooling system which is too heavy to put on top of the building because of the stilts…. It kind of sounds like someone couldn’t do exactly what they wanted and is pitching a fit.

Mike 1
Guest
Mike 1

BAF is on point!

Eric S. Huffstutler
Guest
Eric S. Huffstutler

So, what is the bottom line? What is happening with this building now? As far as an A/C unit, can’t it be on the ground rather than on the building roof? I am sure there are companies that make lighter weight units just because of various weight issues like this? Maybe an import manufacturer?