Fulton / Rockett's Landing

[Brent114]

I’m with Whw53.  

Park space is great but there is never enough density around any of our parks for them to feel lively.   They always seem to be located at the edge of a neighborhood and not in the middle of one.  The Diamond District park will never have more than a dozen people in it except for after games when people will walk through it to get to their cars.  There shouldn’t be any park space in that plan, IMO.  The density is never going to get to where it sustains any life.  There isn’t even enough land around it to build up the necessary density.   The Arena District in Columbus is lifeless.  The Carlisle area of Alexandria too.  These are two similar developments with large grassy areas at their centers. The green space at both go unused, save for the occasional dog pooping in the grass. 
 

Monroe Park is the only Richmond park filled with people.  That’s because it is surrounded by high density housing.  There aren’t enough people living in the city to populate the parks that we have.  We don’t need any more.  We need more housing. 

[123fakestreet]

2 hours ago, Brent114 said:

I’m with Whw53.  

Park space is great but there is never enough density around any of our parks for them to feel lively.   They always seem to be located at the edge of a neighborhood and not in the middle of one.  The Diamond District park will never have more than a dozen people in it except for after games when people will walk through it to get to their cars.  There shouldn’t be any park space in that plan, IMO.  The density is never going to get to where it sustains any life.  There isn’t even enough land around it to build up the necessary density.   The Arena District in Columbus is lifeless.  The Carlisle area of Alexandria too.  These are two similar developments with large grassy areas at their centers. The green space at both go unused, save for the occasional dog pooping in the grass. 
 

Monroe Park is the only Richmond park filled with people.  That’s because it is surrounded by high density housing.  There aren’t enough people living in the city to populate the parks that we have.  We don’t need any more.  We need more housing. 

Exactly. "how can you be against green space!?!?!" Because when it's not properly implemented it goes completely unused and it's just a silly waste.  We get these big developments and to sell it they say it has green space. The casino is even selling that. Whether you are for the casino or not, literally no one is EVER going to use green space off of Bells Rd next to a casino. If it's city owned then it costs money to maintain, or it goes to crap and there's just weeds and trash everywhere. The only real nice, utilized urban park in the city is Monroe Park.

SA and Manchester probably need parks because it's dense and people actually live there, but the city won't do it because there's higher land value there. So instead they throw a park over off of Leigh where there's already a football field and then say "here, see we are pro green space, we gave you a park." And then no one ever uses it because no one lives there and it's not convenient. People aren't going to get in their car and drive to the park, it should be 1-2 blocks away from where they live.

 

Edited August 29, 2023 by 123fakestreet

[Flood Zone]

Any park of any scale needs a dog park component - separate spaces for big and small dogs.  I'm talking about something nice, not like Barker Field. I mean like the dog park over at Short Pump Park. 

[Brent114]

In my perfect world Richmond would have zero dogs.  But yes any new parks should have dog parks included. 

———————————————-

I’m glad that this building will be demolished.  It’s one of those on which Richmond has spent far too much time and energy.  It was cool back when the street went under it (the novelty),  now it’s just an eyesore.  Good riddance. 

[I miss RVA]

5 hours ago, Brent114 said:

I’m with Whw53.  

Park space is great but there is never enough density around any of our parks for them to feel lively.   They always seem to be located at the edge of a neighborhood and not in the middle of one.  The Diamond District park will never have more than a dozen people in it except for after games when people will walk through it to get to their cars.  There shouldn’t be any park space in that plan, IMO.  The density is never going to get to where it sustains any life.  There isn’t even enough land around it to build up the necessary density.   The Arena District in Columbus is lifeless.  The Carlisle area of Alexandria too.  These are two similar developments with large grassy areas at their centers. The green space at both go unused, save for the occasional dog pooping in the grass. 
 

Monroe Park is the only Richmond park filled with people.  That’s because it is surrounded by high density housing.  There aren’t enough people living in the city to populate the parks that we have.  We don’t need any more.  We need more housing. 

 

3 hours ago, 123fakestreet said:

Exactly. "how can you be against green space!?!?!" Because when it's not properly implemented it goes completely unused and it's just a silly waste.  We get these big developments and to sell it they say it has green space. The casino is even selling that. Whether you are for the casino or not, literally no one is EVER going to use green space off of Bells Rd next to a casino. If it's city owned then it costs money to maintain, or it goes to crap and there's just weeds and trash everywhere. The only real nice, utilized urban park in the city is Monroe Park.

SA and Manchester probably need parks because it's dense and people actually live there, but the city won't do it because there's higher land value there. So instead they throw a park over off of Leigh where there's already a football field and then say "here, see we are pro green space, we gave you a park." And then no one ever uses it because no one lives there and it's not convenient. People aren't going to get in their car and drive to the park, it should be 1-2 blocks away from where they live.

 

 !!!!!!  On ALL counts, @Brent114and @123fakestreet. You both said it far better than I can - and you both hit on EXACTLY what I feel is the point. Parks and green space are all well and good - but let's get RVA's priorities straight. Let's first BUILD UP the city - let's get the population to grow much more robustly. THEN we can concern ourselves with baking in more green space. Let's not forget: RVA (unlike all of our chief economic competitors) is 100% landlocked as an independent city. We cannot expand outward as some of our competitors have done and continue to do. Yes - we can - and SHOULD - go vertical - but our population is still trying to catch up from 35 years worth of hemorrhage (1970-2005). Imagine if RVA - instead of losing an estimated 71,000 residents during that period, the city not only kept those residents but added an equivalent amount. By 2005 our population could have been in the neighborhood of 335,000. Then if you factor in the estimated gain of 11K residents between the nadir in 2005 (193K) and the 2010 census (204K) - then the 11% growth during the 20-teens - RVA's city population would be at roughing 391,000 including estimates accounting for gain through 2023. Just this bump-up alone would push the RVA metro population to the doorstep of 1.5 million (1, 496,800) - which would be a not insignificant difference in our market size. And folks, as we know, when it comes to market size and development - SIZE MATTERS.  To be pushing 400K in the city and 1.5M in the metro would make a HUGE difference for RVA.

Then - at that point - I might be a little more amenable to advocating for green space.

As a corollary, this level of market size would also impact RIC in terms of airlines serving us, destinations, frequency, etc. A bigger city and a bigger metro would mean a bigger airport.

[CitiWalker]

I have to say I love to have green space.. Who says  a park has to be supper crowded to have any value. Sometimes people wan to just have to have a peaceful stroll or sit down and relax. One thing I like about Richmond is we do have open space. That s important.  There is a need to have a balance of  green space and  increased density. No need to fill up every nook and cranny to achieve that. For starters, it would be good to simply maximize getting rid of all of the  surface parking downtown.  I also am big on adaptive reuse when possible. Apparently  the state backed out on  building a new building to replace the Monroe Tower. I am kind of happy about not tearing down the tallest building we have in the city. Anyway....the way it is  situated  feet from the highway how would that work in terms of tearing it down,. I can't see implosion. It would take weeks to clean up the debris. Also it would take years to break it down bit by bit. I would rather see green space over surface parking lots or buildings that are sitting and serving no purpose. I like the fact of having little oasis  in the middle of dense structures. It is important for cities to reinvent themselves without relying on old concepts rather adapting  new  patterns that  help the environment, promote density, and create functionality. It involves and different way of thinking. Cities evolve so it makes sense to be evolutionary in our concepts of what a city should look, feel, and function like. 

[wrldcoupe4]

4 hours ago, CitiWalker said:

Apparently  the state backed out on  building a new building to replace the Monroe Tower. I am kind of happy about not tearing down the tallest building we have in the city. Anyway....the way it is  situated  feet from the highway how would that work in terms of tearing it down,. I can't see implosion. It would take weeks to clean up the debris. Also it would take years to break it down bit by bit. 

I don’t think this means they aren’t tearing it down. They are actively looking to lease space elsewhere for the agencies that are in the building. They plan to move out, question is do they sell or tear it down? They don’t sell much. 

[ancientcarpenter]

12 hours ago, wrldcoupe4 said:

I don’t think this means they aren’t tearing it down. They are actively looking to lease space elsewhere for the agencies that are in the building. They plan to move out, question is do they sell or tear it down? They don’t sell much. 

Maybe rumors, but I thought the general consensus was that they are looking to sell it to a developer. In addition to that, the building must come down one way or another because to remediate all that 70s "good old days" toxins would cost too much... plus, building is ugly. 

Edited August 30, 2023 by ancientcarpenter

[CitiWalker]

Either way... everything cost money no matter what direction the state chooses. Just playing devil's advocate about the logistics of tearing it down. Could be costly and time consuming.  Hopefully a developer ( if sold) can find a cost-effective way to implement some type of adaptive re-use.

[wrldcoupe4]

If it’s salvageable for a different purpose, I don’t mind it staying. 

[Brent114]

It’s a good building that just needs power washing and new windows.

It isn’t any more toxic than the other office towers that have been converted over the last 10-15 years. 

[benstyree]

28 minutes ago, Brent114 said:

It’s a good building that just needs power washing and new windows.

It isn’t any more toxic than the other office towers that have been converted over the last 10-15 years. 

Agreed 100%.  A paint job for the rounded concrete "corners" and replacing the awful looking windows/cladding would do wonders for the aesthetics of the building.  I would hate to see it come down.  Rather, I'd love to see it sold to a developer who builds its long lost twin on the northern end of the parking garage, although preferably a fraternal twin...

[Flood Zone]

Admittedly, this is third- or fourth-hand information, but my understanding is that it's a very poor building in almost every conceivable way, even more so internally than externally, and setting aside the logistics of bringing it down, the fact it stands 449 feet seems to carry significantly more weight to this board than to anyone who will decide its fate.

[ancientcarpenter]

55 minutes ago, Brent114 said:

It’s a good building that just needs power washing and new windows.

It isn’t any more toxic than the other office towers that have been converted over the last 10-15 years. 

The inside is filled with asbestos. Long term employees of the state have complained about health issues from working inside that building. Upper level government directors have confirmed this to me. You couldn't pay me to work in that building no pun intended

[CitiWalker]

Hey what do you say we start our own Save The Monroe Tower campaign...lol. We can all give our version of its supposed historical value and relevance to our skyline.  I for one agree that the outside of the building is more about aesthetics than anything.  Remember how old and outdated the Bank of America Building looked before they painted it white? Same ole blah brownish concrete looks up until that point. Here is a side thought. Has anyone ever thought about what the coliseum could possibly look like if it were re-skinned with modern materials. To me the spaceship like shape was really unique and provided a sort of landmark architecturally for the city. Sure, the brown color played out and made it look dated, but it was still functional.  Imagine if it had a more up to date skin like what they did to city hall.  Yeah, I know the coliseum is old, but it has good bones on it. I am not an architect but if I were, wouldn't it me more of a challenge to take something that is existing and incorporate modern design and materials with older materials and design elements to make something exciting and new that has history and stories to go along with the structure. As person who as a child grew up with not a lot of anything, I always was taught how to make something out of nothing, which meant using your imagination and ingenuity. To create something useful. 

[Icetera]

4 minutes ago, ancientcarpenter said:

The inside is filled with asbestos.

And the other older towers that have been since renovated were not?

[wrldcoupe4]

1 hour ago, Flood Zone said:

Admittedly, this is third- or fourth-hand information, but my understanding is that it's a very poor building in almost every conceivable way, even more so internally than externally, and setting aside the logistics of bringing it down, the fact it stands 449 feet seems to carry significantly more weight to this board than to anyone who will decide its fate.

I’ve heard this from everyone that is familiar with it. 

[Brent114]

All of the downtown high rises that have been converted have or had asbestos (every Fan house too).  The cool thing  about asbestos is that when you remove it, it’s gone.  I’ve done asbestos remediation.  It isn’t a big deal.   
 

There has been a Federal asbestos ban since 1978.  This was building was finished in 1981.  There probably isn’t even asbestos in the building.   Tall tales and rumors most likely. 

Edited August 30, 2023 by Brent114

[I miss RVA]

4 hours ago, Brent114 said:

All of the downtown high rises have or had asbestos (every Fan house too).  The cool thing  about asbestos is that when you remove it, it’s gone.  I’ve done asbestos remediation.  It isn’t a big deal. 

1.) Re: asbestos and downtown buildings: that's my thought as well - EVERY one of the legacy towers downtown from that era ('60s through late '80s) has to be chocked full of asbestos. Did Dominion have to do asbestos remediation prior to tearing down OJRP a few years ago? And of the office building-to-apartment conversions - I can't imagine that the old Ross Building (or Wytestone or whatever it's being called - I've always known it as the Ross Building) is a legacy mid-'60s building. And the Eighth and Main/former Wheat First Securites building (or whatever it's known as nowadays) - is from 1976 - surely that's a living, breathing EPA hazmat site just waiting to happen.

That the Monroe Tower has asbestos shouldn't make that much of a difference should it? PLUS (and I guess this could be a turn-off to a potential developer looking to buy/invest) - the state wouldn't have to pay one thin dime for asbestos abatement if they were to sell the building off.

2.) The state actually stands to MAKE money if they don't demo the building and sell it off. I don't have the figures handy (I actually have the info somewhere on my desktop PC or on an external hard drive) but if my swiss cheese memory serves, I do believe that if the state were to sell, they were projecting a windfall of somewhere in the neighborhood of $28 million - and that was based on a pennies-on-the-dollar sale if I recall correctly. PLUS - factor in the state NOT having to spend a dime to get rid of asbestos or demo the building - and they come out like bandits if they sell.

Somehow I can't imagine how and why the state would turn down the potential to snag close to $30 million for what will amount to little more than "surplus" office space. It's not like they "need" the land either - given the fact that they're scuttling plans for the "replacement" building at 7th and Main - the state's not hurting for office space or available land upon which to build. I realize this is the Commonwealth of Virginia (meaning the government) we're talking about here - and since when has ANY state government EVER done something that actually made good common sense?

Still - if I were a delegate or a state senator, I personally would be pushing hard for the state to sell off the property in order to both save on the costs of asbestos removal and demolition - AND - to bankroll upwards of a cool, crisp $30 million (and I might be underselling what was quoted - I should look for that info to see - but I seem to recall it being in the neighborhood of $28 million).

A clever, crafty, creative developer could turn that building into an iconic venue, whether residential, hotel, mixed-use - you name it. Get someone from New York or from here in Chicago to come in and work some out-of-state wizardry on it.

Edited August 30, 2023 by I miss RVA

[Brent114]

Just want to point out again that there was a federal ban on asbestos beginning in 1978.  This building was completed in 1981 (can’t find the start date for construction).   It shouldn’t even have asbestos.  If the ban went into effect in 1978 surly it had been debated from the early 70’s.  Everyone knew the dangers when the Monroe building was built.  
 

Lead paint was also banned in 1978.  There probably isn’t even lead paint in the building. 

[wrldcoupe4]

5 hours ago, Brent114 said:

All of the downtown high rises that have been converted have or had asbestos (every Fan house too).  The cool thing  about asbestos is that when you remove it, it’s gone.  I’ve done asbestos remediation.  It isn’t a big deal.   
 

There has been a Federal asbestos ban since 1978.  This was building was finished in 1981.  There probably isn’t even asbestos in the building.   Tall tales and rumors most likely. 

The issues aren’t asbestos. Worse than that. 

[blake_p]

James River Education Center

[Rooster]

I cant wait to see how this one ends up

 

[ancientcarpenter]

On 9/3/2023 at 6:56 PM, Rooster said:

I cant wait to see how this one ends up

 

I bike by it regularly. I love how it's coming up in a very organic feel. As if it's a mushroom in the woods. Rarely have I ever seen a construction worker there or a truck or any noise. It just seems to come up on its own in the high grasses. 

Anyone who isn't too excited about this, let me just give a small perspective from a bike addict: I recently did the Cap2Cap trail (100+ miles). When I arrived in Jamestown/Williamsburg there was a very large beautiful building to welcome me, with a/c, and free water - a community center. It is not only nice but can be a life saving thing.

What does a biker have when they finally make their 50miles to RVA (or 100 miles coming back)? Walk up the hill to Boathouse and ask for water from generous host staff? Maybe make their way to the fishing dock and a nice fisherman can share their *not water* drink? RVA needs this because it's a gateway to RVA from a biker's sense.

We hosted the UCI race!

Edited September 8, 2023 by ancientcarpenter

[rjp212]

Building Permits have been filed for the 5 story mixed used building at 501 Orleans Rd.