Jackson Ward / Gilpin

[whw53]

It really is a beauty. HJWA is such a cesspool tho - let me copy over some comments i heard tonight- i jut sit there with my jaw open. much ignorant fuss about parking, demographics, materials etc - that organization has no direction, no vision and it is increasingly clear
does not represent the best interests of the neighborhood. jeez they cant even keep tabs on publicly accessible plans made available by the city. i am embarrassed developers have to put up with such ignorance. similar historic neighborhoods in Baltimore, Portsmouth, Roanoke, etc. would kill for a project like this. The Maggie Walker NHS ppl are sick...you really think Maggie Walker's legacy is one of preservation and that she would appreciate the parking lot next door to her home? She was a dynamic figure in the neighborhood, she built institutions, businesses - woke up every day and walked to Broad St to check on her businesses and invest, be involved in the goings on of the day- these folks stay in there well to do townhomes and deny that the neighborhood in everyday experience is a dump tbh - hardly any services, 2nd st is abandoned save for one weekend a year, arts district is largely a joke lets be real. They complain about trash problems, parking problems - so self righteous they would sanitize the neighborhood for these personal problems - the real systemic problem we have is lack of housing. so someone proposes a high class 65 unit building and you push your grievances, inconveniences, lifestyle etc. on them? so off base

"What have you planned for trash outside? Litter is a huge deal."

"Per Richmond 300, tree canopy cover should be 35% for every neighborhood. that's a challenge for JWard, but the site only has 1 tree. This is a stormwater nightmare. could you include more trees?"

"We have a parking issue currently at Maggie L. Walker NHS."

something something 'do you have to build to the edge of the street?' 

something something 'have you accounted for parking for the commercial user'

blah blah

 

 

sorry for rant - it's comments like these that send me out drinking on a tuesday
 

fyi it is to be all brick facade - hard to nail down from the rendering but different shades of brick gammiano clarified.

Edited November 17, 2021 by whw53

[I miss RVA]

whw53 - wow... I'm shaking my head just reading this. 

What's sad is that this really is that "old-school Richmond" mindset. Like you said - no vision whatsoever - kvetch and complain about EVERY LITTLE DETAIL - even though their own actual involvement in partaking of the area is limited to "what is the value of my house this year vs last" - and "how much am I paying in property tax this year" ... this meeting sounds like so much clueless babbe-de-brook and poppycock... (trying not to say what I REALLY want to say) ...

If nothing else, this kind of thing CLEARLY demonstrates part and parcel what has been a primary factor in holding Richmond back as much as this city has been held back for the past 50 years. It was like this half a century ago - and sadly, nothing has changed. It's just sickening. Like you said - historic neighborhoods in other cities such as Baltimore among many others would absolutely kill for a project like this.

Dare I ask - WHAT, pray tell, were the kvetching about regarding demographics? That's can't be good, I'm sure...

Thanks for the clear-eyed report, whw53. I second your rant!

Edited November 17, 2021 by I miss RVA

[ancientcarpenter]

6 hours ago, I miss RVA said:

whw53 - wow... I'm shaking my head just reading this. 

What's sad is that this really is that "old-school Richmond" mindset. Like you said - no vision whatsoever - kvetch and complain about EVERY LITTLE DETAIL - even though their own actual involvement in partaking of the area is limited to "what is the value of my house this year vs last" - and "how much am I paying in property tax this year" ... this meeting sounds like so much clueless babbe-de-brook and poppycock... (trying not to say what I REALLY want to say) ...

If nothing else, this kind of thing CLEARLY demonstrates part and parcel what has been a primary factor in holding Richmond back as much as this city has been held back for the past 50 years. It was like this half a century ago - and sadly, nothing has changed. It's just sickening. Like you said - historic neighborhoods in other cities such as Baltimore among many others would absolutely kill for a project like this.

Dare I ask - WHAT, pray tell, were the kvetching about regarding demographics? That's can't be good, I'm sure...

Thanks for the clear-eyed report, whw53. I second your rant!

 

The demographics part was really more parking related in terms of "who do you plan to market to that you don't intend them to own a car..." type of insinuations. 

 

Usually, I'm with Jackson Ward on a lot of these developments; I want the developers to take historic areas into account and not just build + parking can be an issue. However, on this one I disagree with HJWA. I think the developer did a very good job already working with the Maggie Walker park and has already taken into account many historic features. He is preserving two buildings in the back for historic purposes, of which if he demolished them I think he probably could have added 20-30% more units to the building (or parking ha!).

 

At one point, after many questions about parking, the developer just shook his head and said "you live in a city..." and I agree with that. Don't live in the smack-dab-middle of the city if you want easy parking. That's like living on broad st and complaining about late night bus stop commotion or living in the fan and complaining about bar/restaurant noises. The developer even stated that he was taking into account 50% of the units having a car...however, he does NOT have to as the city only requires 1 parking spot for every 4 units. He's already going above the minimum requirement (approximately from the details what I can remember). 

 

I think HJWA has gotten the short end of the stick too many times and it all comes back to lack of leadership, structure, and foresight. The Penny and many other developments should not have been designed in Jackson Ward the way they were. They are ugly and belong to Scott's Addition, not Historic Jackson Ward. However, the Penny fell right outside the historic district line so they can do whatever they want. Why didn't Jackson Ward petition land within it's community to be designated historic is beyond me. Can't complain after the fact.

Similar thing happened to the huge development across from Adarra (formerly known as Rogue Gentleman) - Jackson & 1st. The low income housing tripled after the plans were already approved by the HJWA and it went right under their noses. 

Similar thing happened with the now incoming Cameo house (Jackson & Cameo St, Pine St): That land was section over a decade ago for houses in the neighborhood and Better Housing Coalition bought it from that developer and are now building 60+ low income apartments. How did it get approved? HJWA didn't pay attention to it even though "leadership" was constantly in talks with them.

 

HJWA got had and now they are mad at any development. I don't blame them entirely but it is from their own doing. However, we should definitely acknowledge a lot of this is legacy issues that racism, red-lining, corrupt/racist banking practices, etc. had a lot to do with it. But we also do need to move on and the resources are there today to allow HJWA to have better opportunities for leadership and change but they are not taking it. I have heard many complaints that the President of HJWA does not like confrontation... like, what?! You live in a hot development historic area...you HAVE TO BE DIRECT and AGGRESSIVE! 

Kim Gray lives in Jackson Ward and I'd love to see her clean house and take the bull by the horns with HJWA. She knows what she is doing from what I've seen.

[whw53]

@ancientcarpenter good analysis. Yes, i was a little heated and didn't mean to suggest that residents should bow down and not have an opportunity to discuss or poke holes in development plans. I mean, that's exactly what we do here ... What got me here was that a lot of the criticism came after the fact. A faction of the attendees had already made up their mind to be against this no matter what - the individual criticisms that were articulated seemed to be a search to justify this position -  not an objective take on the plan. For these meetings to work you have to be open- minded.

As to the Panny and the upcoming Admiral - I don't know they don't seem all that bad. I know we give Walter Parks a lot of grief but i like the mixing of the old and new and the end products from them tend to fit in better than the renderings reveal. I actually like the Penny - I find it to be somewhat more attractive than the Van De Vyer\Rosa complex - i live on Marshall and definitley like seeing more people out an about. I like that they placed the amenities an the courtyard\pool at ground level - it ties in better with the street than the Summit in SA for instance. And something will eventually bite on their retail space. 

As to HJWA getting the' short end of the stick '- your  right  i- it's more and more obvious to me that that is probably of their own making. They don't seem very organized to me on the development front - they don't seem to grasp concepts like the master plan, zoning, etc. or really have any appreciation of urbanism really. The gwarBar decibel noise conversation was hilarious. 

Edited November 17, 2021 by whw53

[ancientcarpenter]

1 hour ago, whw53 said:

i live on Marshall and definitley like seeing more people out an about. I like that they placed the amenities an the courtyard\pool at ground level - it ties in better with the street than the Summit in SA for instance. And something will eventually bite on their retail space. 

 

 

Would love to hear your Jackson Ward experience. How long have you lived in JW for? Have you noticed a "rebirth" of the community? What changes have you noticed in the last year or so with the new apartments coming up - technically, with all the apartments that have been built it's something like over 2-300 new residents in Jackson Ward alone. 

[I miss RVA]

@ancientcarpenter-- thanks for another clear-eyed view on this. Between you and @whw53we're getting some good perspective on what's really going on in JW.

I will say - I'm in agreement with @whw53regarding the Penny and the mix of old and new. I'm actually glad that the Penny stands out some. While I do agree with you that most Walter Parks designs are better suited for Scott's or Manchester, I do like the mix of old and new in a legacy neighborhood with a tight, solid urban footprint. I'm not at all in favor of these "homogeneous" neighborhoods where the new blends in SO perfectly with the old it either looks fake, staged, or contrived. Having a mix of the new in with the old - like the Penny and like the upcoming Admiral - creates a wonderful urban tapestry that is and has always been the hallmark of big cities. This kind of thing is a staple of cities such as New York, Philadelphia, Boston, Baltimore - and definitely here in Chicago. We WANT to see how a neighborhood has grown, changed, developed over the decades. I look at this kind of mix of old and new in legacy urban neighborhoods as the urban version of rings inside a tree - mileposts of the growth and change. I don't see where new architecture necessarily takes away from the character of a neighborhood, when it's done within reason. Does it "change" it? Perhaps. And maybe that's what the preservationists are so loathe to accept - change.  I'm frankly glad to see JW changing. We're not losing the historic character by any means - if anything, the Penny sitting on the borderline of the actual historic district enhances the distinction between the hard-core historic district and "regular" Jackson Ward. I'm glad the entire ward isn't constrained by historic district regs, to be quite honest.

@ancientcarpenter-- a really good point about the developer of this project actually sacrificing the chance to increase the number of units or parking (or both) out of respect for the historic character of the neighborhood and being sensitive enough to preserve the two buildings you mentioned. I would think that the HJWA could maybe be a little smarter in their arguments - but then again, as @whw53 said, that might require a bit more understanding about things like master plans, zoning, and a solid appreciation for legit urbanism. That the developer is also going above and beyond city requirements on parking should also be recognized - it sounds like the association wants to have its cake and eat it too. "Preserve those two buildings but give us more parking"... 

Two more points - you mentioned they're kvetching about "does it have to be built right to the street" ... seriously??  Wow... To quote the developer - "you live in a city". YES IT SHOULD BE BUILT RIGHT TO THE STREET!!! Why wouldn't it be? (I really can't roll my eyes hard enough at this one!)

I'm glad I'm not the developer because I have absolutely NO patience for this level of sheer ignorance...

And regarding Kim Grey - with all due respect, I am extremely hesitant when it comes to putting her in ANY position of authority or responsibility when it comes to matters that can impact development. Regardless of her denials, she comes across as VERY anti-growth, anti-density. Recall how much she kvetched about the Opus - wowwww... at a whopping 12 stories. Jesus - you'd think the developer wanted to build the Burj Khalifa there or something. (SMH - RMEs)

No offense - but the less she has to do with things like this, the better off Richmond will be.

Edited November 17, 2021 by I miss RVA

[ancientcarpenter]

33 minutes ago, I miss RVA said:

 

No offense - but the less she has to do with things like this, the better off Richmond will be.

I agree and disagree. At a minimum, Historic Jackson Ward Assoc. needs SOME type of organized leadership. Now, is it best leadership for developers and development? Probably not. But, at a minimum, she is organized and detail oriented and follows up on things. In that sense, she would at least allow the community insight and leadership to accordingly reply to things before they are breaking ground. There were a few projects where HJWA leadership just said "idk what they're doing over there!?" when it's literally happening in Jackson Ward. These projects don't just pop up overnight, there is a process. Kim Gray, at a minimum, would at least be getting ahead of some of these things and have better conversations early on than possibly a few weeks before the developer breaks ground and all the community questions are knee jerk "what about parking" questions that could have been settled on day 1 instead of day 200 - I really need to work on my run-on sentences!

Competence and organization is key...even if I disagree with the community direction sometimes. At least the opposition to development can be organized and have insightful debate instead of what we see now. 

Edited November 17, 2021 by ancientcarpenter

[I miss RVA]

25 minutes ago, ancientcarpenter said:

I agree and disagree. At a minimum, Historic Jackson Ward Assoc. needs SOME type of organized leadership. Now, is it best leadership for developers and development? Probably not. But, at a minimum, she is organized and detail oriented and follows up on things. In that sense, she would at least allow the community insight and leadership to accordingly reply to things before they are breaking ground. There were a few projects where HJWA leadership just said "idk what they're doing over there!?" when it's literally happening in Jackson Ward. These projects don't just pop up overnight, there is a process. Kim Gray, at a minimum, would at least be getting ahead of some of these things and have better conversations early on than possibly a few weeks before the developer breaks ground and all the community questions are knee jerk "what about parking" questions that could have been settled on day 1 instead of day 200 - I really need to work on my run-on sentences!

Competence and organization is key...even if I disagree with the community direction sometimes. At least the opposition to development can be organized and have insightful debate instead of what we see now. 

Fully agree with you that competence and organization is critical. I would argue, however, that citizen groups such as this need to stop being (seemingly ALWAYS) so dug-in-at-the-heels against development. There has to be give and take. You mention "opposition to development" being organized - what about "support of development" within a neighborhood association? If there is to be insightful debate - it shouldn't be strictly the neighborhood association versus the developer. That's my beef with these kinds of associations. And it's also why they tend to get stuck (fairly or unfairly) with the label of "NIMBY".

Sure Kim Grey might be organized, detail oriented, etc. But to what end? So we want someone to get ahead of developers to totally kibosh projects before they can get off the ground? Or to set stipulations so restrictive that developers won't waste their time and money to invest in the area? That's been one of my arguments regarding what's held Richmond back so horribly over the past 50 years. It's the WRONG mindset for a city that absolutely needs to go pedal to the metal to bring investment into the city - to bring developers, to bring jobs, to bring companies/corporate relocations, to bring new residents. 

All of that to say - there MUST be someone else who lives in the district who is every bit as smart, organized, dedicated, detail-oriented - and who isn't so dead-set against development or anti-density - who could take the reins of leadership and help direct the association. Given what's at stake, what's needed is someone who actually gets it - especially given that she has made it abundantly clear through public opposition to a wide variety of projects, proposals, zoning regs, etc., that she clearly does not.

Should things be done within reason? Of course!! Do I support imposition of REASONABLE requirements upon developers going directly into boundary-drawn historic districts such as the one in JW? Of course!! Here again, however, is why I'm SO glad that the entire ward hasn't been cordoned off as "historic" with all of the bells and whistles of overly restrictive regs that can keep the area from bouncing back, flourishing, growing and helping to push Richmond forward. As it stands, projects such as the Penny, the Admiral, and this one at 2nd and Leigh absolutely benefit JW, downtown RVA and the city (and by extension - RVA metro) as a whole. 

Particularly a project like this one at 2nd and Leigh - where the developer has been proactive in being sensitive to the neighborhood - and what a beautiful project! And think of all the good things that will come from having this new building: people living there, perhaps businesses at street level. It's grass-roots revitalization from the ground up. Like @whw53 said, historic neighborhoods in other cities (well, big cities - not towns like Charleston or Savannah) would die to get this kind of building built where currently sits a vacant lot.

As another poster mentioned on the Monroe Ward thread: a great quote from the legendary Bette Midler upon visiting RVA years ago - something to the tune of (paraphrasing) - "You have such a gorgeous city! What's with all the holes? Fill in the parking lots!" This project at 2nd and Leigh isn't merely filling in a parking lot. It's bringing more vitality to a once iconic, historic street (2nd Street) and neighborhood that is beginning to wake up from a decades-long slumber. I'm excited to see the change coming to this grand old neighborhood. Indeed, the investment in the neighborhood's future alone would make Maggie Walker very proud.

Edited November 17, 2021 by I miss RVA

[whw53]

On 11/17/2021 at 10:54 AM, ancientcarpenter said:

 

Would love to hear your Jackson Ward experience. How long have you lived in JW for? Have you noticed a "rebirth" of the community? What changes have you noticed in the last year or so with the new apartments coming up - technically, with all the apartments that have been built it's something like over 2-300 new residents in Jackson Ward alone. 

I've only been here for 5 years -  2 years at an apartment on Broad St more toward 'City Center' (was atop Broadway Marketplace)- couple month stint in Randolph, then my partner an i live now at a row-home on Marshall. So don't have the longevity to really mark a 'rebirth'. From what i understand Jackson Ward has been talked about as 'up-and-coming' for the past 15-20 years. I think people see it's relative 'mid-town' location, smattering of restaurants, tall buildings in the background, and think it's on the cusp. I certainly detected that 5 years ago when i chose this part of town but honestly it feels almost the same as it did then, given the dramatic changes elsewhere in the city. What really perplexes me is how much other neighborhoods have soared past JW in the past 5 years. I moved here the week the The Hof events venue opened up in SA and Scott's has just been rocketing ever since - 5 years ago there was hardly any new construction there it had just gained its reputation as a 'beverage district' from a light industrial area. It has now evolved and is moving more rapidly to a real urban neighborhood. Same is true of Manchester - 5 years ago scattered factory lofts, Legends - that's it. I've been visiting Richmond for the past 10 years so the geography of the city wasn't new to me when i moved. Look at all these places now. If JW existed in any similar mid-sized city it would have been reborn already - in Richmond you now have 5 or 6 urban downtown nodes evolving and there's almost a sort of inter-city competition for amenities, dynamism, concentration of activity. I want JW to throw it's hat into the ring more because the proximity to downtown, the architecture, the grid was built for it  - it (and Shockoe) deserve it more than any other place. If downtown is going to be reborn it's got to start along Broad and with Jackson Ward. So when i see talk of litter, parking and trees as the response to a modest 5 story development on a parking lot  i really don't understand what world these people want when they walk out their front door. 

I said 'almost' the same because there are a couple levels to 'change'. Yes, there is a change of restaurants, shops on Broad st constantly - but the pattern hasn't changed a whole lot. some make it - a lot don't =- it's mostly the same retail bays abandoned, same ones filled just the ventures rotate. I do notice more people out occasionally than i think did i did back in '16 or '17 (but its hard to tell tbh because i went from the farthest east to the farthest west block of the neighborhood)- a lot more dogs, somewhat more activity around Brook where it hits Broad for sure and up into Abner Clay Park. What's driven that i think is the attractiveness of the renovations at the park, the installation of the public plaza for Maggie Walker at Broad\Brook, and the concentration of new restaurant shells in the SNP buildings. I don't know - is it all new people or is ti people finally feeling safe to venture outside their apartments now? Either way it has bee noticeable.  Yes, i think SNP is working hard to turn this into an area with amenities for their residents - i think it's still out whether that's going to stick or not in the short term. Don't know if all those will make it but that whole block is now assuredly bars of some sort for the foreseeable future - so that feels different at least. Shows at the two music venues in the neighborhood (Gallery5, Black Iris) are definitely consistent,  more crowded than a few years back but i don't know...nothings a given i think. People see a couple renovations and scream gentrification- it feels like momentum - even so, they only add a unit or 2 here and there.  It hasn't been a dramatic shift i guess is what I'm going on about- the day the Penny reached full capacity was just like any other day. Sorry for the stream of consciousness response -  i'll think more about this over the next week or so.

Edited November 18, 2021 by whw53

[I miss RVA]

4 hours ago, whw53 said:

I've only been here for 5 years -  2 years at an apartment on Broad St more toward 'City Center' (was atop Broadway Marketplace)- couple month stint in Randolph, then my partner an i live now at a row-home on Marshall. So don't have the longevity to really mark a 'rebirth'. From what i understand Jackson Ward has been talked about as 'up-and-coming' for the past 15-20 years. I think people see it's relative 'mid-town' location, smattering of restaurants, tall buildings in the background, and think it's on the cusp. I certainly detected that 5 years ago when i chose this part of town but honestly it feels almost the same as it did then, given the dramatic changes elsewhere in the city. What really perplexes me is how much other neighborhoods have soared past JW in the past 5 years. I moved here the week the The Hof events venue opened up in SA and Scott's has just been rocketing ever since - 5 years ago there was hardly any new construction there it had just gained its reputation as a 'beverage district' from a light industrial area. It has now evolved and is moving more rapidly to a real urban neighborhood. Same is true of Manchester - 5 years ago scattered factory lofts, Legends - that's it. I've been visiting Richmond for the past 10 years so the geography of the city wasn't new to me when i moved. Look at all these places now. If JW existed in any similar mid-sized city it would have been reborn already - in Richmond you now have 5 or 6 urban downtown nodes evolving and there's almost a sort of inter-city competition for amenities, dynamism, concentration of activity. I want JW to throw it's hat into the ring more because the proximity to downtown, the architecture, the grid was built for it  - it (and Shockoe) deserve it more than any other place. If downtown is going to be reborn it's got to start along Broad and with Jackson Ward. So when i see talk of litter, parking and trees as the response to a modest 5 story development on a parking lot  i really don't understand what world these people want when they walk out their front door. 

I said 'almost' the same because there are a couple levels to 'change'. Yes, there is a change of restaurants, shops on Broad st constantly - but the pattern hasn't changed a whole lot. some make it - a lot don't =- it's mostly the same retail bays abandoned, same ones filled just the ventures rotate. I do notice more people out occasionally than i think did i did back in '16 or '17 (but its hard to tell tbh because i went from the farthest east to the farthest west block of the neighborhood)- a lot more dogs, somewhat more activity around Brook where it hits Broad for sure and up into Abner Clay Park. What's driven that i think is the attractiveness of the renovations at the park, the installation of the public plaza for Maggie Walker at Broad\Brook, and the concentration of new restaurant shells in the SNP buildings. I don't know - is it all new people or is ti people finally feeling safe to venture outside their apartments now? Either way it has bee noticeable.  Yes, i think SNP is working hard to turn this into an area with amenities for their residents - i think it's still out whether that's going to stick or not in the short term. Don't know if all those will make it but that whole block is now assuredly bars of some sort for the foreseeable future - so that feels different at least. Shows at the two music venues in the neighborhood (Gallery5, Black Iris) are definitely consistent,  more crowded than a few years back but i don't know...nothings a given i think. People see a couple renovations and scream gentrification- it feels like momentum - even so, they only add a unit or 2 here and there.  It hasn't been a dramatic shift i guess is what I'm going on about- the day the Penny reached full capacity was just like any other day. Sorry for the stream of consciousness response -  i'll think more about this over the next week or so.

Wow - @whw53-- these are great observations and there's a lot to unpack here. As someone born and raised in Richmond - and who has followed the comings and goings of the city for the better part of 50 years, I'd like to offer a few thoughts on some the most significant and insightful points you bring up, one by one:

1.) Jackson Ward 'up and coming' - and on the cusp:  That's been the mantra for as long as I can remember. I don't know when it actually began to gain traction from the practical standpoint of a legit revitalization of the neighborhood rather than just as a point of discussion to bring tourism to what was once a significantly historic Black community that decades ago had NATIONAL prominence. If I recall - phrases such as the "Harlem of the South" were used many decades ago to describe this once vibrant hub of Black Richmond. Undoubtedly, the history -- real, legit, actual history, not just "historic" architecture -- is there. But once the turnpike ripped through and tore out the northern half of the neighborhood 65 years ago, it's easy to understand the decline that followed. The gentrification argument is a touchy one - because, like it or not, there are certain economic and demographic realities that are part of Richmond's long history - and from the late '60s into certainly the '80s if not the 90s -- the area (outside of the immediate historic district being first put together around the Maggie Walker House) had become just another down-at-the-heel urban neighborhood that was suffering economically and socially, that sat on the edge of a slowly dying downtown, despite having an AMAZING history, an AMAZING story to tell, and gorgeous old buildings. Again, I don't recall specifically when the concept that JW was really "up and coming" finally started to gain traction - it "feels" to me like a more recent development - not much more than 20 or 25 years in the making.

That said:

2.) JW feels "almost" the same as it did... other neighborhoods soaring past JW/... SA and Manchester ROCKETING forward: This brings into play one of my primary beefs with the traditional Richmond mindset of holding on to every shard of whatever is deemed to be "historic" whether or not it legitimately is. Areas that are converted into boundary-drawn, regulation-driven historic districts are extremely resistant to change. And that (as has been pointed out by many on these boards here elsewhere) seems to be the predominant old-school Richmond mindset - an obsessive -- to the point of being almost irrational -- resistance to change. Why is it that Scott's and Manchester are absolutely flourishing, booming, growing? Because both sections of the city have undergone RADICAL change - and are full-on EVOLVING. Neither is what it once was. In Scott's and in Manchester, there just isn't as much resistance to the inevitability of change that thriving, growing cities naturally go through as they evolve over time. Unfortunately, to a greater or lesser degree, far too many in Richmond have done whatever possible to try to blunt the natural evolution that the city is, thankfully, enjoying now.

Fortunately, Richmond is -- even though still a mid-sized city -- actually too big to be locked into a homogeneous pattern of development that smaller places have often adopted as a response to change. I know we throw phrases like NIMBYs - NIMBYism, etc. around here like confetti - but when it comes to RVA, there is a LOT of truth to it.  I understand the need to preserve important historic components of a city - for a variety of reasons. But when it becomes the overriding and predominant theme - this holding on to the past and dug-in-at-the-heels resistance to change absolutely can and often does cause sections of a city - or an entire city itself - to fully stagnate. Cities need to maintain economic development momentum - it's part of the life's blood of a thriving, growing city. If a city isn't growing, it's dying. Let's be clear about that. That was 101 in my urban planning classes in undergrad. We don't lock cities away under glass domes and preserve them as living museums -- even though, that seems to be the underlying intent of so many who are so adamantly change-resistant in Richmond. Mind you, I'm NOT in favor of bulldozing every old building in town just for the sake of bulldozing them and clearing the way for "potential" new development. (Don't get me started on the absolute atrocity that was the RRHA's complete plowing into the James of old Fulton Bottom...) The timeless character and quality of the fabric of legacy urban neighborhoods that have stood the test of time is vitally important to the spice and seasoning of a city. Exactly the reason cities like Atlanta, Charlotte, Nashville, Austin, Dallas, Raleigh ... you name it... modern-day boom towns really ARE banal - because they don't have that legacy urban footprint commonly found in the old, established cities of the Northeast, the Mid-Atlantic, or the Midwest.

That said, maintaining -- and not destroying -- entire neighborhoods is part of what creates a tapestry of old and new. But at the same time, this almost downright retentive mindset and manner of desperately holding on to EVERY LAST OLD BUILDING at the expense of development that will help revitalize a neighborhood or bring thousands of new jobs downtown or dump tremendous tax revenue into the city coffers -- is something that even from just a COMMON SENSE perspective - is absolutely anathema to me and untenable if a city is going to properly EVOLVE, grow and thrive. And for whatever reason, the old-school Richmond mindset is dead-set against allowing Richmond to EVOLVE into the city is has the potential to become.

3.) If JW existed in any other mid-sized city it would have already been reborn: Yes, sir - you are correct. It would have! Put Jackson Ward in Baltimore... or Boston... or Pittsburgh - it would have been thriving and hitting on all eight cylinders a good 20 or 30 years ago already. Why? Because I don't know of ANY other growing, evolving, thriving city of Richmond's size or slightly larger that is as obsessively change-resistant as is Richmond -- which I have always held is a sin and a shame because this mindset has held us back SO SEVERELY over the past 50-plus years.

4.) If downtown is to be reborn... starting with Broad and JW: On the one hand, I'll agree - but there's a lot more to it than that. Yes - absolutely, Broad Street is by far the most important thoroughfare in downtown, hands down, bar none, and it always has been. As has been documented here on a different thread, the old retail core was epic -something akin to larger cities. Those days are long gone - and whatever kind of retailing or street-level business is going to settle in along Broad or other streets downtown will be a far cry from what was once here 50, 60, 70 years ago.

That said - the biggest thing that is needed for downtown to really revitalize is a critical mass of people living downtown - to turn it into a viable, vital, thriving 24-7 urban place. We're not even remotely close to that point yet. My urban planning professors in undergrad (and this was back in the '80s) suggested 30,000 residents living in (as we've discussed on here elsewhere) "greater" downtown (to include all the wards, extending east to Shockoe Bottom, and all the way along the riverfront from the Bottom to Belvidere Street & the Lee Bridge) ... It's awesome that so many of the old, legacy highrise office buildings (such as the gorgeous CNB Building on Broad or the old F&M building at 9th and Main or the Hotel John Marshall - among many others) have been converted into residential buildings. New construction - VERTICAL construction (as was pointed out by the exec from Jim's Family Parking in the RBS article about old parking lots being purchased in Monroe Ward for future development -- "the world of verticality has come to Richmond") - is the key to fully revitalizing downtown. The more people living, working, eating, drinking, playing downtown - the more draw there will be for establishments who will see downtown as a golden opportunity to make good money, whether its more restaurants, entertainment venues, retail shops - you name it. 

When I think of downtown revitalizing - what comes to mind is buildings like those renderings on the architects drawing boards for a 14-story building at 4th and Broad (no idea if that will ever come to pass), or the Admiral in Jackson Ward, or the 15-story building at 321 E. Grace in Monroe Ward, or the 25-story residential tower at Madison and Broad, or the 20-story residential/mixed use building for the old G.C. Murphy's store site at the corner of 4th & Broad, or the 18-plus-story City Center development on Grace between 6th & 7th, or the 12-story residential building at 17th and Franklin, or the 13-story building along the Canal, or if it's still going to happen (I believe they got the upzoning to TOD-1 for it) the potential 11-story building at 18th and Main... and more buildings just like them sprouting up where there are currently parking lots. I actually visualize in my mind a drone photo of downtown with all or most of these buildings in the picture, whether already built or under construction. Yes - I'm glad we have the 5, 6, 7, 8-story developments beginning to take root here and there in the downtown area. But we need more of the 11 or 12-story and larger buildings to start sprouting up. Downtown needs people - lots of people. And when it comes to bringing people downtown to live - bigger IS better. 

I totally agree though that continued revitalization of JW is essential to supporting a revitalized downtown. And bringing residential height and density to Broad Street, Marshall, Grace - that whole three-block east-west corridor - would go a LONG way to bringing a lot of people downtown to live.

5.) Talk of litter, trees... modest 5-story project... what do these residents want?  That's the $64,000 question, I suppose. Like you said previously - historic neighborhoods in other (less change-averse) cities would DIE for a project like this. Yes - it's a modest 5-story building - but it is a gorgeous design - the developer is sympathetic to the needs of the neighborhood and is sensitive to the historic nature of the specific area. Frankly, it boggles my mind that these residents can literally stare down the proverbial golden goose and be so downright disrespectful as to kvetch about these rather picky "issues". Jesus - trees... seriously?? I can understand parking to an extent - but as @ancientcarpenterhas pointed out, the developer has gone well above and beyond the city regs to provide additional parking. And his quote - "you live in a city" is SPOT ON. WTF do these folks expect?? Again, I lump this in as yet another shining example of the bass-ackwards manner in which Richmond "embraces" growth and development. As for what do these folks want when they walk out the door: I'd like to know the answer to that one myself. I would be willing to bet you could ask them directly - and to a person, they probably couldn't coherently tell you what they want (or even if they could, they wouldn't be able to come to any consensus about it) - but I bet they can ALL quote you chapter-and-verse EVERYTHING they DON'T want. Not trying to hang any labels on these folks - but it is a common trait of NIMBYism - change-resistant folks aren't always able to tell you what they DO want in terms of revitalizing the neighborhood - but they have a laundry list several miles long of all the things they DON'T want. Sometimes I wonder if for some it simply comes down to "so long as I have mine..." in terms of home resale value, assessments/taxes, etc. Which means they aren't looking five feet outside their front door except at everything they perceive might somehow negatively impact that resale value or change the amount of tax they pay. 

I don't know.

Either way, @whw53-- it was a GREAT post. Thank you for sharing some really good insights and observations. Looking forward to more of your thoughts and observations going forward as you think about it more.

 

Edited November 18, 2021 by I miss RVA

[Downtowner]

I have a question regarding these nimbys for the future and sake of our city. Are they old people or young people who are being passed on this old Richmond mentality of against everything and for everything that makes zero sense to economically move this city forward?

[ancientcarpenter]

14 hours ago, Downtowner said:

I have a question regarding these nimbys for the future and sake of our city. Are they old people or young people who are being passed on this old Richmond mentality of against everything and for everything that makes zero sense to economically move this city forward?

It's mostly older and a bit of the younger socially aware crowds. Both are the majority of the population of Jackson Ward. Remember, neighborhood is "up and coming" so it goes through phases. Right now, rent is still relatively low in Jackson Ward and Carver (at least bang for buck) and that attracts certain renters. Why does it attract certain renters? B/c houses are cheaper (or at least were cheaper) and the landlords can afford lower rent amounts. Again, this is all changing as we are seeing luxury 1 and 2bdrm condos going up and some other developments on homes that are starting to sell $400-500k range. Things are changing and with it so are the times.

I'm totally there on preserving history of Jackson Ward. Nobody really wants Jackson Ward to be a conversation of "this was a historic area." Check out Charleston; It's so wonderful going through it and seeing the history, it really is a gem and a huge attraction. However, there is development and parts of Jackson Ward must be flexible just as the developers should as well. Middle grounds. 

[I miss RVA]

2 hours ago, ancientcarpenter said:

It's mostly older and a bit of the younger socially aware crowds. Both are the majority of the population of Jackson Ward. Remember, neighborhood is "up and coming" so it goes through phases. Right now, rent is still relatively low in Jackson Ward and Carver (at least bang for buck) and that attracts certain renters. Why does it attract certain renters? B/c houses are cheaper (or at least were cheaper) and the landlords can afford lower rent amounts. Again, this is all changing as we are seeing luxury 1 and 2bdrm condos going up and some other developments on homes that are starting to sell $400-500k range. Things are changing and with it so are the times.

I'm totally there on preserving history of Jackson Ward. Nobody really wants Jackson Ward to be a conversation of "this was a historic area." Check out Charleston; It's so wonderful going through it and seeing the history, it really is a gem and a huge attraction. However, there is development and parts of Jackson Ward must be flexible just as the developers should as well. Middle grounds. 

Just a few thoughts:

1.) mostly older/some younger socially aware - I think this is the dynamic of the preservationist/NIMBY demographic citywide. The older folks now were the younger folks 30, 40 and 50 years ago - but there were plenty of older folks in this school of thought 50 years ago. I'd add in answering @Downtownerthat while it is somewhat of a generational thing, it is also a socio-economic demographic thing as well. That can't be denied. And it gets passed down within a certain segment of Richmond's population from generation to generation.

2.) Charleston/gem & huge attraction: I can't roll my eyes hard enough every time this comparison is brought up. Richmond IS NOT AND NEVER WILL BE Charleston. THANK GOD!!!

PLEASE - let's move on from this, shall we? I can't stand the comparison - because there IS no comparison any more than there is a comparison between Charleston and New York City. It's an old-school Richmond trope that needs to be shelved permanently. Because Richmond is evolving and as a result, growing - whereas places like Charleston and Savannah have made the choice not to evolve - and have put themselves under a glass dome to become a living museum. Which is fine. If we want to go visit & see a really nice gem of a living museum - we've got two of them right down I-95 with a couple of exits toward the coast - Charleston and Savannah. We don't need a third one. Let's keep Richmond as FAR AWAY from this as possible. Richmond doesn't need to be like Charleston or Savannah, and folks should stop trying to make her into a copy of those places.

(I actually have a headache now...)

3a.) Preserving history of JW -- parts of JW being flexible:  I'm in agreement with you on preserving the legitimate history and legacy of Jackson Ward and what it means particularly to Black Richmond. The legacy and stories of this once vibrant Black community are the stuff of legend - and it gave Richmond NATIONAL prominence because of the importance of this community from a multitude of perspectives.  You're right - no one wants to see the history get plowed under. But guess what? IT'S NOT GOING TO BE!! This is one of those examples of how RVA GOT IT RIGHT in preserving the legitimate history and legacy of Jackson Ward. I only wish the same had been done for Fulton Bottom 50 years ago. 

Regarding parts of JW and flexibility - I agree, even through we may be coming at it from slightly different angles. My contention is that I AM GRATEFUL TO GOD HIMSELF that the ENTIRE ward has not been hermetically sealed under an awful glass dome of historic preservation. Yes - the legit, true historic area has been appropriately cordoned off and the extra levels of care must be applied to the way development is handled there is baked in to that part of the ward. Totally appropriate. However, those heavy strictures don't - AND SHOULD NOT - apply to the entirety of the ward. I have always contended: just because it something is old does necessarily not mean it is "historic".

What is "historic" about blocks that butt up against Belvidere Street or I-95? Or for that matter, where there is a sea of vacant land in the western and northern parts of the ward upon which once stood rows and rows and rows of houses?  Those areas are ripe for redevelopment - and frankly, I don't see where there needs to be ANY restriction beyond that which is already called for by the standard zoning regs as outlined by the Richmond 300 plan.

@ancientcarpenter you probably know the answer to this: what is the zoning for those parts of the ward? I don't have any of that info readily at hand and don't feel like looking it up. Is it B-5? B-7? R-73? What parts are TOD-1? As we've discussed here, R-73 zoning actually allows for buildings of significant size and density - using standard floor plate heights - perhaps up to 10-ish stories tall. If developers want to come in and build out these blocks with larger buildings - and they meet the city's zoning requirements - why should they be stopped? As I say quite frequently on here: no one is talking about dropping something the size, scale and design of the Burj Khalifa in the middle of JW! And, of course, there will be justifiable concerns about parking, and hopefully that gets worked out in a reasonable fashion with developers. As the developer of the site and 2nd and Leigh said - "you live in a city" ... translated, he was saying - "get real, folks."

3b.) Middle grounds:  YES!!! THANK YOU!!! I agree with you 100% Well spake, my friend!

Edited November 19, 2021 by I miss RVA

[ancientcarpenter]

20 hours ago, I miss RVA said:

Just a few thoughts:

1.) mostly older/some younger socially aware - I think this is the dynamic of the preservationist/NIMBY demographic citywide. The older folks now were the younger folks 30, 40 and 50 years ago - but there were plenty of older folks in this school of thought 50 years ago. I'd add in answering @Downtownerthat while it is somewhat of a generational thing, it is also a socio-economic demographic thing as well. That can't be denied. And it gets passed down within a certain segment of Richmond's population from generation to generation.

2.) Charleston/gem & huge attraction: I can't roll my eyes hard enough every time this comparison is brought up. Richmond IS NOT AND NEVER WILL BE Charleston. THANK GOD!!!

PLEASE - let's move on from this, shall we? I can't stand the comparison - because there IS no comparison any more than there is a comparison between Charleston and New York City. It's an old-school Richmond trope that needs to be shelved permanently. Because Richmond is evolving and as a result, growing - whereas places like Charleston and Savannah have made the choice not to evolve - and have put themselves under a glass dome to become a living museum. Which is fine. If we want to go visit & see a really nice gem of a living museum - we've got two of them right down I-95 with a couple of exits toward the coast - Charleston and Savannah. We don't need a third one. Let's keep Richmond as FAR AWAY from this as possible. Richmond doesn't need to be like Charleston or Savannah, and folks should stop trying to make her into a copy of those places.

(I actually have a headache now...)

3a.) Preserving history of JW -- parts of JW being flexible:  I'm in agreement with you on preserving the legitimate history and legacy of Jackson Ward and what it means particularly to Black Richmond. The legacy and stories of this once vibrant Black community are the stuff of legend - and it gave Richmond NATIONAL prominence because of the importance of this community from a multitude of perspectives.  You're right - no one wants to see the history get plowed under. But guess what? IT'S NOT GOING TO BE!! This is one of those examples of how RVA GOT IT RIGHT in preserving the legitimate history and legacy of Jackson Ward. I only wish the same had been done for Fulton Bottom 50 years ago. 

Regarding parts of JW and flexibility - I agree, even through we may be coming at it from slightly different angles. My contention is that I AM GRATEFUL TO GOD HIMSELF that the ENTIRE ward has not been hermetically sealed under an awful glass dome of historic preservation. Yes - the legit, true historic area has been appropriately cordoned off and the extra levels of care must be applied to the way development is handled there is baked in to that part of the ward. Totally appropriate. However, those heavy strictures don't - AND SHOULD NOT - apply to the entirety of the ward. I have always contended: just because it something is old does necessarily not mean it is "historic".

What is "historic" about blocks that butt up against Belvidere Street or I-95? Or for that matter, where there is a sea of vacant land in the western and northern parts of the ward upon which once stood rows and rows and rows of houses?  Those areas are ripe for redevelopment - and frankly, I don't see where there needs to be ANY restriction beyond that which is already called for by the standard zoning regs as outlined by the Richmond 300 plan.

@ancientcarpenter you probably know the answer to this: what is the zoning for those parts of the ward? I don't have any of that info readily at hand and don't feel like looking it up. Is it B-5? B-7? R-73? What parts are TOD-1? As we've discussed here, R-73 zoning actually allows for buildings of significant size and density - using standard floor plate heights - perhaps up to 10-ish stories tall. If developers want to come in and build out these blocks with larger buildings - and they meet the city's zoning requirements - why should they be stopped? As I say quite frequently on here: no one is talking about dropping something the size, scale and design of the Burj Khalifa in the middle of JW! And, of course, there will be justifiable concerns about parking, and hopefully that gets worked out in a reasonable fashion with developers. As the developer of the site and 2nd and Leigh said - "you live in a city" ... translated, he was saying - "get real, folks."

3b.) Middle grounds:  YES!!! THANK YOU!!! I agree with you 100% Well spake, my friend!

I'm still a newbie at this "hobby" so I use this site to find zoning requirements: https://www.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=cf5282d10b6f40fcb361cde85dcc6fe4

 

It's one owner that just got permission to "merge" or "remove" the alley on that lot (take a guess why) where blue and red meet to make one big lot. I don't know if he also got it rezoned at the same time - I highly doubt because that would have taken the HJWA to vote for change of zoning and I would have heard about it. So, technically according my map:

 

RED = One big lot zoned at B2

PINK = Six lots zoned at B2

BLUE = Seven lots zoned at R73

GREEN = One giant two block owned by VCU zoned at R73

 

Now, maybe someone here can help me define what B2 vs R73 is... 

 

 

 

I really hope VCU does something truly amazing with that two block lot. It is not only the first thing future students and parents see when coming off the highway (and last thing they see when leaving) but it's also a gateway into historic JW, Bio-Tech, "Coliseum district" and VCU Health district. If they create one single building with a parking lot I think everyone will be disappointed. Hopefully the developer across the street (blue, pink, red markings) does something to hint to VCU that this block area can become more alive and vibrant with their lot and what they choose to build there. Plus, the developments and future developments across the highway should be a major indicator in which direction that area is going into - VCU's development should act as a strong connector to North Belvidere and "VCU's North Belvidere" on opposite sides of highway. Exciting times for Jackson Ward...

Also, Abner Clay Park just went through a $2m renovation. I can't imagine VCU having prime land essentially touching the park and not doing something really innovative and fun there that will create a lot of "walkability" and engagement by their student, customer, patient, and staff population. 

Edited November 20, 2021 by ancientcarpenter

[I miss RVA]

@ancientcarpenterwow - this is really great! Thanks for posting it!

Zoning:

B-2: Community Business District -- Can contain anything from banks to adult day care facilities, custom printing, communications, dry cleaning, grocery, nightclubs, offices, medical (even hospitals are listed), office supply, pet shops, TV & radio stations, restaurants, retail shops, service business, among many other uses - including auto repair shops and car washes, believe it or not. Building height limited to 35 feet (can be superseded by an SUP) -- and any new construction with greater than 50K sq ft of floor space must be approved by the planning commission.

https://library.municode.com/va/richmond/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=CH30ZO_ARTIVDIRE_DIV20COBUDI

 

R-73: Multi-family Residential District -- Can contain anything from single-family ATTACHED housing (rowhouses) to duplexes to full-on multi-family residential buildings. Building height capped at 150 feet. Can include a variety of uses including nursing homes, day nurseries, offices, even hospitals, adult day care, adult care facilities, transitional housing. NO RETAILING is permitted. 

https://library.municode.com/va/richmond/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=CH30ZO_ARTIVDIRE_DIV11R-MUREDI

 

Now regarding the removal zoning change to that parcel in the far NW corner of Jackson Ward: Why would it require the HJWA to vote on and "approve" it? Does this block not lie outside the actual historic district? Or does HJWA presume to have some kind of "authority" over the entirety of Jackson Ward, not just the portion that is "Historic Jackson Ward"?  The reach of the actual historic district is quite limited, is it not?  I would hope the association would have no say in what goes on outside of the boundaries of the actual historic district, particularly on blocks that are the farthest away and would have minimal - if any - impact on the district.

I'm not at all comfortable with the presumption that the entirety of Jackson Ward is considered "historic Jackson Ward" ... if it's not been officially designated as such, then I would hope the neighborhood association and the preservationists would kindly stand aside and let the area evolve as it will.  It's not going to go the way of Fulton Bottom. I would tend to think (and certainly hope) that new development in these areas outside of the actual historic district will be that which is positive for the entire ward.

I 100% agree with you re: VCU doing something great with this block -- though I'm hard-pressed to think of anything aside from student housing that would be the best-and-highest use for such a large swath of land there. As you said - plunking a single building surrounded by either parking or landscaping would be a complete waste of the space. I honestly would hope something residential in character (particularly given the R-73 zoning - even through "other" uses are permitted in an R-73 zone -- see the provided link above) with plenty of density would be built there. I certainly have no problem in general with VCU expanding its academic campus footprint, but I will admit that I'm not comfortable with them suddenly materializing in Jackson Ward like this. I know this is the argument that Oregon Hill residents have had for years - and I don't want to see large sections of Jackson Ward suddenly becoming VCU's "extended" academic campus. I'm fine with higher density residential development. But I question how appropriate some kind of typical "academic" structure would be for Jackson Ward. Maybe it would be fine, but for whatever reason, the thought gives me heartburn.

[whw53]

To be clear, Historic Jackson Ward has no authority - rezoning would go through the normal process by which Planning Commission studies and recommends, city council votes. They can offer opinions during that process as can anyone.

Sent from my SM-A125U1 using Tapatalk

[wrldcoupe4]

BZoning doesn’t apply to VCU like it does to everyone else. It’s a state school so local zoning doesn’t apply.  The Commonwealth doesn’t need to adhere to local zoning ordinances. 

Edited November 20, 2021 by wrldcoupe4

[I miss RVA]

4 hours ago, wrldcoupe4 said:

BZoning doesn’t apply to VCU like it does to everyone else. It’s a state school so local zoning doesn’t apply.  The Commonwealth doesn’t need to adhere to local zoning ordinances. 

So them owning the land already exempts them from any/all zoning regs and local planning commission red tape?

@coupe does that mean then that VCU could also tell these neighborhood associations where to go and how to get there if they tried to interfere with the school's overall objectives for a given piece of property?

Edited November 21, 2021 by I miss RVA

[whw53]

Sorry I was referring to the site across Leigh controlled by Bilder or really to any tract outside VCU control since they are exempt. To VCU, HJW means even less I imagine.

Sent from my SM-A125U1 using Tapatalk

[Downtowner]

https://richmond.com/news/richmond-housing-authority-wins-federal-grant-for-gilpin-court-redevelopment-effort/article_01922761-704d-516c-b51d-840e7eb52ce2.html#tracking-source=home-breaking
 

very exciting for gilpin court. 

[123fakestreet]

2 hours ago, Downtowner said:

https://richmond.com/news/richmond-housing-authority-wins-federal-grant-for-gilpin-court-redevelopment-effort/article_01922761-704d-516c-b51d-840e7eb52ce2.html#tracking-source=home-breaking
 

very exciting for gilpin court. 

Just to conduct a study, which will take 2 years. Then who knows how long to make a decision, then how much longer and with what money to actually do it. But it's a start.

Gilpin, once intentionally isolated to keep residents tucked away could become a very prime neighborhood because of it. Right next to downtown but a bit of an island. I could see a Rocketts Landing type development completely filing in that entire area from $1M townhouses to $400k condos down to loft Apts mixed in with some retail as well.  Unfortunately that's highly unlikely simply for the optics. 

[ancientcarpenter]

21 hours ago, Downtowner said:

https://richmond.com/news/richmond-housing-authority-wins-federal-grant-for-gilpin-court-redevelopment-effort/article_01922761-704d-516c-b51d-840e7eb52ce2.html#tracking-source=home-breaking
 

very exciting for gilpin court. 

Can someone give me summary, it's behind a paywall...

 

edit: Looks it's a grant from federal gov.t to study and engage the community. They are saying it's a beacon of light as many of these grants go on to get more funding later. Looks like it's a 2 year process but who knows if that means the two year process includes just engagement or engagement and planning as well. All in all, good news. My hope is that they provide mixed housing with retail + the over-the-highway bridge park that is long awaited, much needed, and will serve as a good step forward in trying to make amends to the pure hell that the highway created for breaking Jackson Ward in half and destroying at least 1000 homes and too much history. 

Edited November 23, 2021 by ancientcarpenter

[I miss RVA]

Fans of parklets, rejoice!! Whereas one failed up in the Northside, it looks like one is coming to fruition in Jackson Ward.

https://richmondbizsense.com/2021/12/02/jackson-ward-crossroads-of-brook-marshall-get-parklet-street-mural/

[ancientcarpenter]

36 minutes ago, I miss RVA said:

Fans of parklets, rejoice!! Whereas one failed up in the Northside, it looks like one is coming to fruition in Jackson Ward.

https://richmondbizsense.com/2021/12/02/jackson-ward-crossroads-of-brook-marshall-get-parklet-street-mural/

Checked it out 2 weeks ago. It's quite nice. The street mural is beautiful and the parklet is great - can't wait to see them update it with design and seating. The has more room than the picture shows - can easily fit 4 tables fitting 2-3 people per table. Great addition to the space and Jackson Ward.

 

There were earlier renderings of having the Gallery 5 area be open-concept seating. Not sure what happened, possibly in the mix for future work? Looked great when I saw it and provided seating for 20+ people with green trees in pots, etc.

[I miss RVA]

1 hour ago, ancientcarpenter said:

Checked it out 2 weeks ago. It's quite nice. The street mural is beautiful and the parklet is great - can't wait to see them update it with design and seating. The has more room than the picture shows - can easily fit 4 tables fitting 2-3 people per table. Great addition to the space and Jackson Ward.

 

There were earlier renderings of having the Gallery 5 area be open-concept seating. Not sure what happened, possibly in the mix for future work? Looked great when I saw it and provided seating for 20+ people with green trees in pots, etc.

That's fantastic. I'm glad to see these things starting to take root in JW. Street ambiance and activity is SO important in old urban neighborhoods. Very good to see this.