Near West End

[ancientcarpenter]

Sad to see one developer step away but happy to hear that it is almost shovel ready...and that Bruce is on it.  300+ apartment is nothing to blink at.

 

Who knows, maybe it becomes for sale condo/townhome units like we just saw on RBS today regarding Manchester and Papa development?

 

Bruce really should join this forum. He's missing out on quality, silver lined port-a-potties. 

[I miss RVA]

7 hours ago, ancientcarpenter said:

Sad to see one developer step away but happy to hear that it is almost shovel ready...and that Bruce is on it.  300+ apartment is nothing to blink at.

 

Who knows, maybe it becomes for sale condo/townhome units like we just saw on RBS today regarding Manchester and Papa development?

 

Bruce really should join this forum. He's missing out on quality, silver lined port-a-potties. 

1.) Shovel-ready is a good thing. And very true - 340 apartments is nothing to sneeze at. Really nice density.

2.) I hope not. While I have no problem with for-sale condos entering the fray, those kinds of developments tend to REALLY tamp down on potential density, stifles growth AND does next to nothing to address the housing shortage, which developers have said, negatively impacts a region looking to grow economically. Look at the "pushback comments" that pop up on RBS when stories break about a new apartment building proposed for a legacy neighborhood. The NIMBY response is "too much density", "too much transience", "out of character". And the mantra of "more home-ownership, more neighborhood stability, yada yada" is generally a catch-phrase for saying "no growth" or, at most, "extremely slow growth". That whole cry of "condos/townhomes, not apartments" is a call to seriously tamp down growth. 

Mind you - I DO support for-sale opportunities and agree they're a necessary component in the development mix. But what bothers me is that "Richmond-scale" for sale opportunities are nowhere near the same as "Nashville-scale" or "Austin-scale" - where instead of 20 or 40 or - at the very most - 60 units (like you'd see here), you might see 150, 200, 250 units (or more) built in any one single development. That's a BIG difference.

3.) Oh man - Bruce would have SO many RVA/UP Silver Port-a-potties, he'd be able to use them like LEGOs to build a Silver Port-a-potty high-rise!  

Edited February 29 by I miss RVA

[ancientcarpenter]

Question: Whenever I hear people complaining about too many apartments being built and not enough "for sale" units, a common response is "the apartments will eventually become for sale" - where is this coming from? Is there a 10/20/30 year strategy by these apartment developers to turn the apartments into for sale units after they hit their profit margin? I imagine it's a delicate balance between profit taking, time, and maintenance costs going up as the units age and at what timeframe does the apartment company look at it and say "too much cost... now is time to put lipstick on these apartments and sell them as condos and just charge a monthly HOA fee for maintenance."

 

Or maybe I'm making all of this up... can someone steer my (lack of) knowledge clear?

[123fakestreet]

1 hour ago, ancientcarpenter said:

 a common response is "the apartments will eventually become for sale" - where is this coming from?

I've never heard anyone say that.

[Flood Zone]

The Lock Lane condos were originally apartments. My wife's elderly (now-late) grandmother had to move out of their before the transition, probably 18 years or so ago, and ended up at Malvern Manor.

But whatever plan that may have arisen from, it wasn't 10, 20, or 30 years! Maybe 50 years!

[RVABizSenseMike]

6 hours ago, ancientcarpenter said:

Question: Whenever I hear people complaining about too many apartments being built and not enough "for sale" units, a common response is "the apartments will eventually become for sale" - where is this coming from? Is there a 10/20/30 year strategy by these apartment developers to turn the apartments into for sale units after they hit their profit margin? I imagine it's a delicate balance between profit taking, time, and maintenance costs going up as the units age and at what timeframe does the apartment company look at it and say "too much cost... now is time to put lipstick on these apartments and sell them as condos and just charge a monthly HOA fee for maintenance."

 

Or maybe I'm making all of this up... can someone steer my (lack of) knowledge clear?

I haven't heard much about this. The only recent instance I can recall is the former Saint Gertrude's campus in the Museum District. SNP Properties is converting it into 39 apartments with plans to later turn them into for-sale condos.

[I miss RVA]

16 minutes ago, RVABizSenseMike said:

I haven't heard much about this. The only recent instance I can recall is the former Saint Gertrude's campus in the Museum District. SNP Properties is converting it into 39 apartments with plans to later turn them into for-sale condos.

Thanks, Mike!

[I miss RVA]

@RVABizSenseMike has some interesting reporting in today's RBS that the Seventh Street Christian Church - a mainstay at Grove and Malvern avenues for the past 75 years - is relocating and is soliciting RFPs for the possible (probable?) sale of their two-acre property. It opens up a whole realm of possibilities (and a whole realm of neighborhood pushback). The church building is gorgeous and - no doubt - if a developer came in and dropped in even a modestly-dense residential development, it will mark a drastic change in that neighborhood.

Our dear friend Bruce had a great comment regarding how the property could be developed:

Bruce Milam

 31 minutes ago

 

It’s an interesting site and location. There’s going to be a lot of pushback from the neighborhood and Greek Church membership for anything more than three stories and that includes structured parking. Even tall garage unit towns will be complicated but I think it has strong possibilities as a high-end townhouse site.

No doubt, there's going to be pushback and, unlike my usual anti-NIMBY stance, I can't say I'd be not understanding about it in this case. Still, I agree with Bruce that the potential there is tremendous. Even a group of three-story townhouses would bring a nice injection of density into the area and would transform the property into something that generates some tax revenue for the city. It does seem like a good place for townhouses as opposed to an apartment building such as the one at 3600 Grove. Dunno if the church building could be repurposed in part or in whole as part of any redevelopment, but it would be cool if it could be. It's a beautiful building. (And yes, I know - this is coming from the guy who preaches "if it's in the way, knock it down.")

Would love to see this big parcel transformed into something with some density.

From today's Richmond BizSense:

https://richmondbizsense.com/2024/04/08/church-at-grove-and-malvern-soliciting-interest-from-developers-ahead-of-move/

[Flood Zone]

This is an extremely finicking neighborhood, with wealthy residents, the types who would fight any zoning changes.

[I miss RVA]

37 minutes ago, Flood Zone said:

This is an extremely finicking neighborhood, with wealthy residents, the types who would fight any zoning changes.

I'd imagine that the Greek Orthodox Cathedral being right next door will have a big voice in the matter.