Richmond Developments

[I miss RVA]

1 hour ago, upzoningisgood said:

@I miss RVAThe advantage of getting rid of parking minimums is for smaller projects and for zones where the parking requirements may be onerous. In Nashville suburbs, it's not unusual to find parking requirements as high as 2 spaces/unit, which is nuts. Smaller projects by mom-and-pop firms might benefit because those firms are generally more willing to get "weird" and try out-of-the box stuff like parking less than 1 per bed. Institutional guys like Greystar and Crescent will still be parking one per bed.

 

You can make a low-rent growth, high-volume approach work--see Texas. Texas is also crazy cheap to develop in, partly because they don't place a ton of restrictions on you, partly because there is a lot of general contractor competition because Dallas and Houston have been growing for so long, and the land is easy to develop on because it is flat. However, construction costs have grown so much that the insane rents we see now are needed to make deals pencil. A lot of people think "greedy developers" are raking it in right now, but that's not true--return metrics are actually down from a few years ago as the explosion in construction costs has harmed deal quality everywhere in the country.

 

If construction costs came down, you would see a lowering of the economic break-even point and new units entering the market. I think that would help attract businesses and residents. I think part of the reason RVA has grown faster than NOVA is the increased value proposition now that fewer people have to commute to downtowns for work. 

I don't think that only having one BRT line instead of 6 matters much as far as business relocation goes at the moment, but I think developing a culture of public transit (and biking) could allow the city to develop in ways that attract business in the future. Bluntly, the executives at the companies looking to move to RVA will not be taking public transit, so they would only care about transit in so far as proximity helps attract employees. NYC, DC, Chicago, and maybe Boston, SF, and Philly are probably the only markets where rapid transit access is high enough for high-end talent (rich people who have a lot of options and make a lot of money who businesses want to attract) to seriously value proximity to a rapid transit stop. However, people have also demonstrated that they will pay more (reveal a preference for) walkable, dense developments. Like, people pay a premium to live in the Fan, and it's not because the houses are 100 years old. While it's possible to develop row houses in a car-dependent manner (see Houston), dense walkability is typically easier (and safer, and more pleasant) if there are fewer cars, especially for small-scale retail, and that is only feasible with robust rapid transit. So, I think a wide-scale BRT system with 6 lines would be helpful in that it would enable denser, walkable (and with mass upzoning, cheaper) neighborhoods that people have demonstrated a preference for, and companies want to be where workers want to be. I don't think companies are looking at RVA and thinking "if only they had 5 more BRT lines!" Austin, San Antonio, Houston, Tampa, Nashville, Phoenix, Raleigh, and Orlando and doing just fine without a wealth of rapid transit options.

Thanks so much, @upzoningisgood! I always feel like I'm attending a master class on these topics when you and @wrldcoupe4speak to and explain these matters. Very much appreciated!

So if I understand correctly - a citywide removal of parking minimums would have little to no impact on large scale projects by the big deeper-pocketed (as you said, institutional) developers, correct? Then what's the upshot as far as RVA development goes? Is Tom Papa a "mom-and-pop" enough of a developer to benefit? Or is he too large among local developers? Where is the "win" for Richmond in eliminating the parking minimums if the big, out-of-town/state institutional developers like Crescent, Hourigan, Avery Hall, Greystar, etc., who are more likely to develop larger projects likely won't move of the one-space-per-bed standard? Please tell me this wouldn't benefit only the "Tom, Dick Harry" firms that do the three-story infills in Church Hill, the Bottom or Jackson Ward, but otherwise build nothing of any size, scope, scale or major impact.

Good to know about the BRT lines. Regarding developing row houses in car-dependent areas - that seems to be the trend of most of the dense suburban developments popping up around metro Richmond. While there may very well be inherent walkability contained within a "bubble" of the development, the developments themselves are not integrated with - well - ANYTHING. Perhaps the notable exception being some of what's going on in Westwood - where the established street pattern (while not a full-on grid but enough of a compact and tightly designed pattern common among mid-20th-century legacy suburbs) lends itself to more walkable development that can benefit from (and be a benefit to) mass/rapid transit. (Of course, the established PULSE line already runs just a few blocks from the core of these developments - which is not surprising.)

So is it safe to say that regardless of all of these things (eliminating parking minimums, greater development of mass/rapid BRT transit) - the bottom line is still 1.) lower construction costs and 2.) lower interest rates are what are most likely to serve as a healthy dose of "Urban Miracle Grow" for RVA?

Edited April 10, 2023 by I miss RVA

[Hike]

5 hours ago, I miss RVA said:

Thanks so much, @upzoningisgood! I always feel like I'm attending a master class on these topics when you and @wrldcoupe4speak to and explain these matters. Very much appreciated!

Completely agree. 

[upzoningisgood]

@Hike @I miss RVA

Very kind, thank you!

[I miss RVA]

41 minutes ago, upzoningisgood said:

@Hike @I miss RVA

Very kind, thank you!

It's heartfelt, my friend, and it's the truth. 

[rjp212]

First I am seeing this, but a fairly large industrial development is being proposed on Mechanicsville Turnpike.  Seems to be a mix of Business and Manufacturing uses that straddle the Richmond/Henrico line.

 

[I miss RVA]

31 minutes ago, rjp212 said:

First I am seeing this, but a fairly large industrial development is being proposed on Mechanicsville Turnpike.  Seems to be a mix of Business and Manufacturing uses that straddle the Richmond/Henrico line.

 

So this looks like a marketing brochure by the Thalhimer realty folks. Are you talking about the two large swaths shown on their map rendering as being "under contract"?

 

[rjp212]

Correct, there are 5 large parcels available with 3 of them under contract.

[I miss RVA]

32 minutes ago, rjp212 said:

Correct, there are 5 large parcels available with 3 of them under contract.

Do we know who the purchasers are?

[upzoningisgood]

23 hours ago, I miss RVA said:

So if I understand correctly - a citywide removal of parking minimums would have little to no impact on large scale projects by the big deeper-pocketed (as you said, institutional) developers, correct? Then what's the upshot as far as RVA development goes? Is Tom Papa a "mom-and-pop" enough of a developer to benefit? Or is he too large among local developers? Where is the "win" for Richmond in eliminating the parking minimums if the big, out-of-town/state institutional developers like Crescent, Hourigan, Avery Hall, Greystar, etc., who are more likely to develop larger projects likely won't move of the one-space-per-bed standard? Please tell me this wouldn't benefit only the "Tom, Dick Harry" firms that do the three-story infills in Church Hill, the Bottom or Jackson Ward, but otherwise build nothing of any size, scope, scale or major impact.

First of all, and I say this as someone who works for an institutional developer--Tom Dick and Harry development is super important! It's good that people have different options in different places other than 300+ unit apartments.

Anyway, I would define Tom Papa as a mom and pop developer because he is exclusively local, but I have real respect for his game. Being exclusively local (and likely securing equity from smaller, more idiosyncratic firms) and successful probably affords him some latitude to get weird with parking if he wants. Our version of Tom Papa, Giarratana, actually has a skyscaper with 250 units, 50 of which are Affordable, and no parking spaces. All of that with worse transit in Nashville than RVA. Local developers who like to go vertical might still benefit from no parking minimums. But, that doesn't get rid of parking unless there is a credible reason to think prospective tenants will go sans car. Nashville has no parking minimums downtown. Go look on Google Maps and tell me how much it looks like NYC.

23 hours ago, I miss RVA said:

So is it safe to say that regardless of all of these things (eliminating parking minimums, greater development of mass/rapid BRT transit) - the bottom line is still 1.) lower construction costs and 2.) lower interest rates are what are most likely to serve as a healthy dose of "Urban Miracle Grow" for RVA?

Yes, although this would be the miracle grow for every city in the current environment. More important I think would be relatively low construction costs. I think RVA could benefit from embracing cost efficiencies during construction and design that other cities would not. There is some talk around loosening design restrictions around corridors (right now basically every apartment has a hallway with doors on either side called a dual loaded corridor. This forces buildings to be quite wide. Single-loaded corridors or (I think they're called) point access blocks are two options that allow you to design buildings that are economical at smaller scales). I have talked about cross-laminated timber before--I think updating the zoning code to allow construction of CLT would help the economics of large-scale construction. I think embracing things that let RVA be relatively cheap could be a real competitive advantage in the short and medium-term. (I think in the long term these will eventually be adopted).

 

 

Edited April 11, 2023 by upzoningisgood

[I miss RVA]

20 minutes ago, upzoningisgood said:

First of all, and I say this as someone who works for an institutional developer--Tom Dick and Harry development is super important! It's good that people have different options in different places other than 300+ unit apartments.

Anyway, I would define Tom Papa as a mom and pop developer because he is exclusively local, but I have real respect for his game. Being exclusively local (and likely securing equity from smaller, more idiosyncratic firms) and successful probably affords him some latitude to get weird with parking if he wants. Our version of Tom Papa, Giarratana, actually has a skyscaper with 250 units, 50 of which are Affordable, and no parking spaces. All of that with worse transit in Nashville than RVA. Local developers who like to go vertical might still benefit from no parking minimums. But, that doesn't get rid of parking unless there is a credible reason to think prospective tenants will go sans car. Nashville has no parking minimums downtown. Go look on Google Maps and tell me how much it looks like NYC.

Yes, although this would be the miracle grow for every city in the current environment. More important I think would be relatively low construction costs. I think RVA could benefit from embracing cost efficiencies during construction and design that other cities would not. There is some talk around loosening design restrictions around corridors (right now basically every apartment has a hallway with doors on either side called a dual loaded corridor. This forces buildings to be quite wide. Single-loaded corridors or (I think they're called) point access blocks are two options that allow you to design buildings that are economical at smaller scales). I have talked about cross-laminated timber before--I think updating the zoning code to allow construction of CLT would help the economics of large-scale construction. I think embracing things that let RVA be relatively cheap could be a real competitive advantage in the short and medium-term. (I think in the long term these will eventually be adopted).

 

 

Humble thanks, as always, @upzoningisgoodfor the great information and for providing clarity to what to us laymen is a rather complicated science. Tom Papa really is quite amazing - and quite prolific. Were the economic situation to suddenly straighten out and get back to where we were not that long ago, it's not a stretch to see him moving on several projects in very short order. As it stands now, if you include the two buildings he's proposed in the vicinity of Foushee and Grace, the Locks project on the Canal, South Falls II & III, and The Box 2, he could have as many as SEVEN new buildings under construction - four of which would be more than 10 stories tall. Safe to say, he'd be in the running for the RVA Jefferson Starship Award - in that he'd be able to say of his company - "We built this city..." 

So is the bottom line on eliminating parking minimums in RVA that it's great talking point for the city government, but at the end of the day, it will have minimal/marginal/incremental impact on actual development?

[upzoningisgood]

 

On 4/10/2023 at 11:23 PM, I miss RVA said:

Humble thanks, as always, @upzoningisgoodfor the great information and for providing clarity to what to us laymen is a rather complicated science. Tom Papa really is quite amazing - and quite prolific. Were the economic situation to suddenly straighten out and get back to where we were not that long ago, it's not a stretch to see him moving on several projects in very short order. As it stands now, if you include the two buildings he's proposed in the vicinity of Foushee and Grace, the Locks project on the Canal, South Falls II & III, and The Box 2, he could have as many as SEVEN new buildings under construction - four of which would be more than 10 stories tall. Safe to say, he'd be in the running for the RVA Jefferson Starship Award - in that he'd be able to say of his company - "We built this city..." 

So is the bottom line on eliminating parking minimums in RVA that it's great talking point for the city government, but at the end of the day, it will have minimal/marginal/incremental impact on actual development?

No, it matters. It prevents a type of error where the government mandates too much parking, more than makes economic sense. It just won’t get parking counts as low as you might want for big projects. 

[I miss RVA]

The Planning Commission votes on this today.

From today's Richmond BizSense:

https://richmondbizsense.com/2023/04/17/commission-to-vote-today-on-proposed-repeal-of-city-parking-requirements/

[BigBobbyG]

59 minutes ago, I miss RVA said:

The Planning Commission votes on this today.

From today's Richmond BizSense:

https://richmondbizsense.com/2023/04/17/commission-to-vote-today-on-proposed-repeal-of-city-parking-requirements/

I saw this mentioned on reddit but we can send emails in support (of removing the minimums) to [email protected]. I also saw that the plan for the apartments on grace and thompson that got continued from the other planning commission meeting is back up on the docket today. Here is hoping for favorable outcomes for both of these topics!

[I miss RVA]

9 minutes ago, BigBobbyG said:

I saw this mentioned on reddit but we can send emails in support (of removing the minimums) to [email protected]. I also saw that the plan for the apartments on grace and thompson that got continued from the other planning commission meeting is back up on the docket today. Here is hoping for favorable outcomes for both of these topics!

QUESTION: Which apartments on Grace? I knew about the one on Grove Avenue. What's gotten pushed back on Grace? I think I might've missed something!

Edited April 17, 2023 by I miss RVA

[BigBobbyG]

Ah I meant Grove and not Grace. My apologies for the slip up! 

[I miss RVA]

14 minutes ago, BigBobbyG said:

Ah I meant Grove and not Grace. My apologies for the slip up! 

Gotcha! Thanks for clarifying! 

[I miss RVA]

8 hours ago, I miss RVA said:

The Planning Commission votes on this today.

From today's Richmond BizSense:

https://richmondbizsense.com/2023/04/17/commission-to-vote-today-on-proposed-repeal-of-city-parking-requirements/

Has anyone heard any updates on this yet? Curious is the measure was approved and sent to City Council.

My God... the kvetching going on about this by readers over in the RBS comments section. I just don't get the mindset that eliminating parking minimums equates to a complete removal of any/all parking for a new development - (as in, a zero-sum game - either it's all or nothing).  Particularly when Bruce attempted in the comments to actually educate folks -- as @upzoningisgooddid for us here -- and he pointed out that typical lender requirements are 1 to 1.25 parking spaces per unit. Eliminating parking minimums doesn't mean that a developer building a 260-unit apartment building will put a token 50 spaces in and call it a day. (Or simply not build ANY parking at all.) But it DOES mean that said developer won't be "required" by the city to build out something like 320 parking spaces (just spitballing numbers here, so the accuracy of how this works is probably off) for a 260-unit building.

Wowzers...

Anyhoo - if anyone's heard anything, please let us know!

Edited April 17, 2023 by I miss RVA

[whw53]

It passed !

Sent from my SM-S908U1 using Tapatalk

[I miss RVA]

30 minutes ago, whw53 said:

It passed !
 

 

Sent from my SM-S908U1 using Tapatalk
 

 

YESSSSS!!!! 

[BigBobbyG]

I’m so happy this passed, though we aren’t out of the woods yet. Look at this obviously biased survey from the fan district association I just saw. 
 

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSfzHLXTLotudnn5x_q_Dk09EuXNwmR6-V8Yug-yai01R6niyw/viewform

[I miss RVA]

56 minutes ago, BigBobbyG said:

I’m so happy this passed, though we aren’t out of the woods yet. Look at this obviously biased survey from the fan district association I just saw. 
 

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSfzHLXTLotudnn5x_q_Dk09EuXNwmR6-V8Yug-yai01R6niyw/viewform

I selected "approve" and submitted it. Form does NOT ask where you live. 

Folks, I STRONGLY URGE EVERYONE ON HERE to take 30 seconds, select "approve" for the change in zoning and submit the form. If we can flood their survey monkey with "approve" selections - either they won't present a biased survey to the City Council - or they'll HAVE to show that there were significant numbers of folks who approve. ALSO - BE SURE TO WRITE SOMETHING IN FAVOR OF THE CHANGE IN THE COMMENT SECTION!!!

It appears to be set up that if you change your account (meaning, log in with a different browser account) you can submit more than one vote without raising eyebrows. I have multiple active Google accounts and can set up to log in on each of them and submit a new survey form under each one. Guys - we must fight fire with fire - flood this survey app with "approve" votes and let's stop these NIMBYs dead in their tracks!

 

Edited April 18, 2023 by I miss RVA

[I miss RVA]

Good article in today's RBS about a city-to-Henrico move that should have very positive developmental impacts for both localities. Because this impacts two areas, rather than double posting in the "Suburban Developments" and "Diamond District/Hermitage" threads - I'm putting it here in the catch-all "Richmond Developments" thread.

The regional non-profit foodbank Feed More has purchased land in Villa Park in northern Henrico and plans to relocate their headquarters and food bank operations to the site adjacent to St. Joseph's Villa. The $1.52 million land purchase closed earlier this month. Feed More is planning to built a 124,000 sq ft distribution warehouse plus offices on the site. According to Jonathan Spiers' reporting, construction of the new facility is currently slated to begin in August, with Feed More leaving their Rhoadmiller Street site east of the Diamond District with completion in late 2024.

Feed More's move then frees up their large Rhoadmiller Street parcel, which is currently up for sale. In the comments, Bruce indicated that the site has already drawn interest from at least one out-of-town developer who looked ready to jump on it but backed out. This area is becoming prime for redevelopment, given all the new construction happening (and in the pipeline) for parcels on Hermitage, Overbrook, and Ownby.

From today's Richmond BizSense:

https://richmondbizsense.com/2023/04/19/feed-more-buys-future-hq-site-lists-diamond-district-area-complex-for-sale/

HERE'S THE VILLA PARK PORTION

 

AND HERE'S THE RHOADMILLER STREET PORTION

Edited April 19, 2023 by I miss RVA

[Rooster]

22 hours ago, I miss RVA said:

I selected "approve" and submitted it. Form does NOT ask where you live. 

Folks, I STRONGLY URGE EVERYONE ON HERE to take 30 seconds, select "approve" for the change in zoning and submit the form. If we can flood their survey monkey with "approve" selections - either they won't present a biased survey to the City Council - or they'll HAVE to show that there were significant numbers of folks who approve. ALSO - BE SURE TO WRITE SOMETHING IN FAVOR OF THE CHANGE IN THE COMMENT SECTION!!!

It appears to be set up that if you change your account (meaning, log in with a different browser account) you can submit more than one vote without raising eyebrows. I have multiple active Google accounts and can set up to log in on each of them and submit a new survey form under each one. Guys - we must fight fire with fire - flood this survey app with "approve" votes and let's stop these NIMBYs dead in their tracks!

 

done

[I miss RVA]

26 minutes ago, Rooster said:

done

THANK YOU @Rooster!!!  

[BigBobbyG]

Heads up y’all here is another survey on the topic of removing the parking minimums! Considering the planning commission unanimously approved eliminating them I want to think it’s a done deal but you never know. 
 

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSeYrmvQc22bw7o6os_cPPPQzbLooT08jJm8p0UFiLyjtiROwQ/viewform