Category Archives: construction

Tredegar Plans To Add New Building

Posted on by
Reply

From the Times Dispatch article:

The new American Civil War Museum will create a contemporary L-shaped building in the courtyard at Historic Tredegar to unite the site and the Civil War experience.
Renderings for the stone and brick building were released Monday by the museum, which unites the Museum of the Confederacy and the American Civil War Center at Historic Tredegar.
The new building will wrap around the Foundry building, home to the American Civil War Center, and replace a much smaller brick-and-glass entry. The current exhibit in that building, “In the Cause of Liberty,” will close after Thanksgiving. In the new setup, the Foundry building will become a multipurpose space for conferences or events.
The main entrance of the new building will face the plaza and be at a right angle to the entrance of the Pattern Building, where the Richmond National Battlefield Park visitor center is located. The visitor center will remain open throughout the construction.

Iconically Wrong

Posted on by
1

On the City Council agenda for July 14th is a proposed 16 story tower on Pear Street proposed by felon Louis Salomonsky and his business partners. The city’s Master Plan, developed with thousands of volunteer hours, insists that the city’s views be protected, and certainly a 16 story tower would block the view of the river from Church Hill.

The Historic Richmond Foundation sent a disturbing letter suggesting that an “iconic” building is needed at that location.

Well, here is the type of “iconic” building at 709 W. Cary that Salomonsky and his business partners threw up in the Oregon Hill Historic District.

Image.ashx

Is Venture Richmond Above The Law?

Posted on by
Reply

Do the City’s rules and regulations do not apply equally to everyone? If the Mayor happens to be the president of your organization, as is the case with Venture Richmond, do the City’s regulations apply equally?

20140704_184507_resized

As of Monday, July 7th, why is there no permit on the city’s web site shown for Venture Richmond’s ongoing amphitheater work on the City-owned property leased by Venture Richmond (the area above the canal)? While it appears that no permit was requested or issued for the City parcel, a City employee indicated that the City parcel work was included in the permit that was issued. But is this correct procedure?

city property W0000051010 at Tredegar Green

In October 2012, the century-old Tredegar wall was illegally demolished on this same City property leased by Venture Richmond. Last week, silt fencing to stop erosion was not installed on the Venture Richmond property until after the public complained. As a result, dirt and debris was pushed into the wetlands.

Venture Richmond repeatedly promised a thorough Section 106 historic review of the impact that the amphitheater would have on the historic James River and Kanawha Canal, but the day after receiving final City Planning Commission approval, Venture Richmond broke this promise and withdrew from the Section 106 review.

Let’s hope that the public remembers Venture Richmond’s broken promises when the Shockoe stadium again rears its ugly head!

Venture Richmond Destroys George Washington’s Historic James River and Kanawha Canal

Posted on by
4

Despite community and preservationists concerns, and with Friday Cheers over for the season, it looks like Venture Richmond has started on the unneeded amphitheater project, doing irreparable damage to this incredibly important historic resource. Alternatives, such as putting Venture Richmond’s largest stage on Brown’s Island, already leased to Venture Richmond, were ignored. There is a large “thumb” bucket backhoe on the canal berm knocking down trees and scouring the dirt. Trucks are dumping fill dirt below the canal berm. And, still no word on replacing the illegally demolished wall.

10500536_10204668859509663_4368211762438935889_n

OHNA Letter On Proposed Cherry Street Zoning Variance

Posted on by
1

From email to the City’s Board of Zoning Appeals:

Dear Board Members,

At the June 24, 2014 meeting of the Oregon Hill Neighborhood Association (OHNA), the neighborhood voted unanimously to oppose the application for zoning variance for the proposed new house at 423 S. Cherry Street (BZA Case No. 15-14).

The minimum side yard setback of three feet as required by Section 114-413.6 of the city zoning ordinance for the neighborhood’s R-7 zoning is not met. We note that, although it may be a lot of record, the 423 S. Cherry Street lot size of 1,161 sq. feet is less than a third of the minimum lot size of 3,600 sq. feet that is required by Section 114-413.5 of the zoning ordinance.

The proposed developer of 423 S. Cherry Street cannot show a hardship because he does not own the property. Also, the proposed developer stated, at a meeting with the neighborhood association to present his plans, that it would be possible to build an eleven-foot wide house meeting the setback requirements of the city zoning code. The owner of the property cannot show a hardship because he purchased the lot in 2003 without any improvements and with full knowledge of the lot’s limitations. The owner purchased this lot along with many other lots for $414,500 from the owner of Victory Rug. The current owner is an experienced developer and has advertised this lot for sale on Zillow as a lot that “does not meet city size requirements for a home.”

The lack of the required three foot minimum side setback would cause a hardship for the owners of the homes on the 800 block of Spring Street. These property owners purchased their homes with the understanding that the city’s zoning ordinance would be enforced and that a house would not be built within inches of their rear property line. It is worth noting that a total of four properties on the 800 block of Spring Street are under a preservation easement in perpetuity through the Virginia Department of Historic Resources. Two of these properties protected by a preservation easement would be affected by the building of a new house at 423 S. Cherry Street.

A new house built within inches of the rear property line of the four houses on Spring Street would potentially cause serious drainage and fire access issues. There is no rear alley access to the property at 423 S. Cherry Street, and without a side setback there would be no access to the rear of the houses on the 800 block of Spring Street. The 1905 Sanborn Insurance map shows a house that previously existed at 423 S. Cherry Street with a side setback of several feet between the former house and the rear lot line of the houses on the 800 block of Spring Street.

The initial design for the proposed house at 423 S. Cherry Street that the neighborhood association received is not sensitive to the design features found in the Oregon Hill Historic District, which is listed on the state and national registers. The one centrally located window upstairs does not correspond with the two-bay design of the door and window apertures of the downstairs of the house. The materials shown in the plans of the house, such as the asphalt shingles on the front porch roof, are not what we would expect to find in an historically sensitive architectural plan. We would encourage the potential developer of this property to reconsider his proposed design.

The developer, at the time of his presentation to the neighborhood association, had not considered where the supercans would be stored if the house is built. It appears that the house at 423 S. Cherry Street and the four houses on Spring Street that back up to this property would have to permanently keep the unsightly supercans in front of each dwelling.

In summary, please deny approval of BZA Case No. 15-14. We do not believe that the owners who have restored their homes should be forced to experience a hardship in order that the developer can build a house without the required setbacks.

Sincerely,

Jennifer Hancock, President
Oregon Hill Neighborhood Association (OHNA)
June 25, 2014

The Board of Zoning Appeals is meeting July 2nd at 1 pm.

Riverfront Railroad History

Posted on by
Reply

Andrew McRoberts has written an interesting article in Richmond.com on the “Reasons Richmond Should Love the CSX Railroad Viaduct”.

Excerpts:

The C&O (now CSX) Viaduct is enormously long (about three miles in length). It starts beneath the Robert E. Lee Bridge near Oregon Hill Overlook, and stretches all the way to Nicholson Street and the former Fulton Yard (across Route 5 from Rockett’s Landing in far eastern city of Richmond). It allows a nearly at-grade (level) train crossing of downtown Richmond along the James River and the Great Shiplock for much of its length.

…

In 2014, the viaduct is celebrating 113 years in its existence. And, as you know if you ever visit the riverfront downtown, the viaduct is still in active use by CSX Corporation

Like much of Phil Riggan’s articles in Richmond.com on the James River, this deserves reading.

I can’t help but wonder if this is a bit of public relations on CSX’s part, given recent concerns stemming from the Lynchburg explosion.

But, getting back to the history…The C&O Railroad Viaduct is a treasure, and Richmond residents should be aware of other important railroad history that is now threatened within sight of the Viaduct. A remnant of the Tredegar Branch railroad connecting the iron works on Belle Isle with Tredegar is slated to be destroyed by Venture Richmond for yet another amphitheater. These tracks sit on the towpath of the historic James River and Kanawha Canal. Venture Richmond’s plan is to lower the towpath below the historical level of water in the canal and in the process of irreparably damaging the canal, the old railroad line will also be scrapped. Alternatives, such as putting Venture Richmond’s largest stage on Brown’s Island, already leased to Venture Richmond, were ignored. It is unbelieveable that Venture Richmond is destroying the Tredegar Branch railroad remnant that is within the Tredegar Historic Site.

HI Richmond Hostel Starts Demo/Construction Monday

Posted on by
1

Many Oregon Hill neighbors have been interested in the new hostel project happening nearby in downtown next to the Main library. From HI Richmond Hostel’s FaceBook page:

We are beyond excited to announce the START OF CONSTRUCTION on our beautiful building on 2nd Street here in RVA. Demolition of the interior starts early next week! Stay tuned for updates and photos!

Hostel Construction

Wire Work

Posted on by
Reply

There has been a lot of rumors about some of the telecommunications wire work going on in the neighborhood.

I received this from a neighbor (posted with permission):

So, I spoke to the technicians working in the neighborhood and they confirmed that we are indeed getting residential fiber (Verison calls it FIOS) installed to our houses. Obviously, this is voluntary. They’re just building out the capacity to provide the service if you want it, because their franchise agreement with the city requires them to do so, and they’ve fallen behind.

FYI- If you switch to FIOS from your old copper phone line, and begin purchasing phone service over the FIOS line, they may try to remove your old copper lines. This is to prevent you from going back to copper, or to use any other service provider.

In reality, they are required by law to reinstall your copper lines (at no charge to you) if they remove them.

Just keep in mind that Verizon may try to get you to bundle all your services into some plan that is delivered via FIOS, remove your copper lines, and then make it difficult for you to get out of that arrangement.

This is interesting, given some of the past appeals and speculation.

Study: Older, smaller buildings better for cities

Posted on by
Reply

From the Associated Press article:

Neighborhoods and commercial areas with a mix of older, smaller buildings make for more vibrant, walkable communities with more businesses, nightlife and cultural outlets than massive newer buildings, according the National Trust for Historic Preservation’s study.
…
“There is a lot of economic capability in older and smaller buildings and in historic districts that’s often overlooked,” she said.
The study is the start of a larger initiative also examining Baltimore, Philadelphia and other cities with less robust real estate markets. Researchers also want to know whether their findings hold up in younger and smaller cities as well or less prosperous areas.
“We hear from time to time, ‘well, it’s just easier to tear it down and to start over,'” Meeks said. “So we feel compelled to put the strongest argument forward that it’s worth the effort to invest in these places, not just from a cultural standpoint but from an economic standpoint.”