Springhill Residents concerned about proposed housing development
The name of the 50 unit proposed apartment building is Richmond Overlook designed by the firm of Winks and Snowa. The apartment would be located on Cowardin between Stonewall and Springhill. The design of the apartment isn’t of concern, it’s the developers track record. The developer is Bridgeland Devleopers. If you take a look at past projects by Bridgeland you’ll find that nearly all (at least all that I checked) are rent controlled. From one resident of Springhill we hear why that is a concern.
Our neighborhood already supports a 70 unit fully subsidized housing apartment building. Our 9 block neighborhood with 35 owner occupied single family homes cannot take much more. We feel we more then share our burden of subsidized housing in the city.
Ahhhh, Marty Jewell’s dream come true…more large blocks of subsidized housing for Southside.
In spite of a nationwide trend to *disperse* subsidized housing (lessons learned from housing projects, of the past), Marty Jewell wants more of this, especially in the part of his district that never votes for him.
He will fight tooth and nail for this to go through.
Well, they tried and suceeded in driving out the last developers that wanted to do a non-rentcontrolled project. Just goes to show that sometimes the development you drive away is better than the one that actually comes.
WHR…this is a different property.
Oh, sorry. Still kind of rings true though.
Not quite: while area residents indeed took issue with the other proposed development, the SUP *was* granted…the developer (Crosland) did not proceed mainly due to overall market conditions (i.e. the real estate bubble burst) Which is why *that* lot is for sale…again. There was no guarantee that that property would not have ended up becoming subsidized housing, either: in fact, that was a main concern for the area residents.
The parcels along that strip are highly problematic from a development standpoint because of traffic/access issues and more.
Does anyone know if the property is zoned for dense multi-family housiong?
According to the city assessors webpage, it is currently zoned B-3 (General business) which allows for some residential dwellings:
“(15) Dwelling units contained within the same building as other permitted principal uses, provided that such dwelling units shall be located above the ground floor of the building or to the rear of other permitted principal uses so as not to interrupt commercial frontage in the district, and provided further that the total floor area devoted to dwelling use shall not exceed three times the area of that portion of the ground floor of the building devoted to other permitted principal uses (see section 114-800.1 for provisions for nonconforming dwelling uses).
There is also a building height limit of 35 ft. for the B-3 zoning.
whr – Actually Springhill supported the original high rise building that was proposed in 2005, despite some traffic concerns, but did not support the subsequent low rise project. There is nothing wrong with supporting or holding out for good ideas that will enhance a neighborhood while trying to drive away bad ones. In my opinion, the 500 and 600 blocks of Cowardin Ave are simply not amenable to ANY residential construction. The lots are too narrow, the cars coming across the bridge travel too fast, and it is not unusual for speeding cars to come off the road at the curve on Cowardin and into the lots in question.
So they will need an SUP or rezoning, and there is a chance for citizen involvement, at the planning and political levels.
“The lots are too narrow”
I strongly disagree. There are plenty of historic Richmond homes that have been built in lots that narrow.
Small houses tend to be better constructed, more energy efficient, and more affordable.
“the cars coming across the bridge travel too fast, and it is not unusual for speeding cars to come off the road at the curve on Cowardin and into the lots in question.” That’s interesting I have never seen that. I also didn’t know you could be stopped form building something because of other people doing something illegal. I wonder if there are any stats on that. Plus, I would gander that if there were buildings there, the drivers would be more aware that the road changed and they would slow down to handle the curve.
“the 500 and 600 blocks of Cowardin Ave are simply not amenable to ANY residential construction.” So what should go there? Office, commercial? The lots should be utilized and returned to tax generating purposes for the city. Right now they look like crap and just drap down that area even more.
whr said “So what should go there? Office, commercial?”
Yes:the lots ARE zoned B-3 for general business. The lots front a road with an enormous amount of vehicular traffic (it is, after all, on US Route 1 where it intersects with State Route 60) that could be taken advantage of.
That the lots currently ‘look like crap’ is the responsibility of the current owners, not the neighbors: it makes no sense to pass the buck on that point. The lots have been underutilized for well over 20 years.
What I would like to know is why developers and city officials think that there is such a lack of housing, affordable or otherwise, in the city to warrant construction of large blocks of apartments. Is there data to support this perception?
It is not the responsibility of the existing neighbors to comeup with an alternative. A rezoning or Special Use Permit is not a right, it is a privilege given in response to a proposal that meets community needs more than the present zoning does. This is an area that is a food dessert. Additional multifamily housing stresses already overburdened city services, or business/economic services. An analysis of traffic flow would show the traffic either diverted one way unto Cowardin, or puished back into the neighborhood on an extension of the existing street system in Spring Hill. Fifty apartments would translate to about 75 cars, makiong an average of six trips a day…300 additional trips through the neighborhood.
Reason for developers continuing to want the parcel for apartments is because that is the only type of real estate development that banks are financing at this point. That is why we see such a glut of new and redevelopment projects coming online.
JD is correct in his analysis. This is why careful planning from the city is important. Simply building for the sake of building is foolish. This site is challenged. However, the views above 5 floors are among the best in the city and lets not forget: it will overlook a chunk of the proposed Riverfront project, it will sit beside one of the main southern entry points to the Riverfront project and will be a stones throw from a number of the proposed Riverfront amenities. Low income housing may be an expeditious route to adding a structure to the tax rolls in the short term, but is ultimately a waste of what would become a much more valuable stretch of land if the Riverfront project happens. I doubt low income housing units, small in size, drab and dull to look at, will add much to the tax base in the end. I cannot imagine there is no other parcel that could be used for this project. Some true vision from the city is needed with regard to this proposal. Will we get it?
“Some true vision from the city is needed with regard to this proposal. Will we get it?”
Doubtful.
[...] Original post about the project. [...]