11 Responses to “Manchester on the James shrinks to 4 stories”

1. posted by Page at January 12, 2008 12:23 pm :
   

   Thats cause 650sqft kind of sucks for any arrangement more then one person with no pets. So all that is remaining is students and folks who live alone. I can see where the neighborhood is coming from, think about the impact of having 3/4ths of those units as students…

   So they will either have to take a drop in price (cause 650sqft isn’t going to move for $180k), or have them sit for a while. I guess I’m sort of surprised that they didn’t reduce units and keep the remaining units around the 900-1000 level to increase your market. There is no way you’ll catch anything resembling a family living in 650sqft.

2. posted by john m at January 12, 2008 9:30 pm :
   

   It’d be hard to have a cat in 650 sq.feet. What’s that, 2 rooms?

3. posted by Scott Burger at January 13, 2008 8:44 am :
   

   More like 3 rooms and a bathroom. I have lived in a small house close to that size. Its very doable.

   I thought density was a good thing, but I guess that word is only used when a bunch of developers want to cram more high rise condo towers along the riverfront.

   I am glad the height has been dropped. Of course, I would rather it did not get built at all, but I am trying to be realistic.

4. posted by Greg Johnson at January 13, 2008 10:43 pm :
   

   I live in Springhill and we have a chance to stop the appproval of the SUP (Special Use Permit) on Jan 28 at City Council. We could use any help. Call your city Council Person or our Rep Marty Jewell (804) 646-6050. Tell Council not to support the SUP as it stands now. This is a unique case and may set precedent in other Richmond neighborhoods. Basically the developer wants to use the same SUP for the sprawling lowrise that was approved for the efficient highrise.If you have questions or want to offer help, give us a call.
   Greg Johnson
   804.233.1242

5. posted by Robert at January 22, 2008 7:11 pm :
   

   Considering what the current zoning is and what could be built there – like a convience store – without asking for anyone for permission I think it’s definitly the Best Use of the parcel. It’s a handsome project – especially considering what’s there now. The project has many different size units – 650 s.f. being the smallest. It looks like quality construction – again condidering what could be built there without asking the Community. I say “It’s what Richmond needs”.

6. posted by Steve at January 22, 2008 7:22 pm :
   

   I think this is the finest project proposed for the Manchester District in all my 58 years of living in Richmond. It would be Great to see the entire southside of the river developed in this manner.

7. posted by Calvin at January 22, 2008 8:56 pm :
   

   Are “Steve” and “Robert” actually “the developer”?

8. posted by snf at January 26, 2008 9:29 pm :
   

   The amended SUP states that any given unit will be *no less than* 650 sq ft, and there is no language guaranteeing that there will be different size units.
   The Developer also has NO FLOOR PLANS, as they are waiting to see where the market goes. While 650 sq ft is ‘doable’ considering how affordable housing still is in the Richmond area, I don’t think that many people would pay the $180,000 to buy (!!) or $900 a month to rent such a small unit, when there is more spacious housing available that doesn’t overlook US Route 1.
   Studio apartments in the adjacent River Towers rent for less than $600 per month and that’s with a spectacular river view.

9. posted by River District News » Council to consider development SUP - Richmond, Virginia at January 28, 2008 10:22 am :
   

   [...] ever-changing Manchester on the James/City View Towers development goes before City Council tonight, for discussion of changes in the SUP. The residents of [...]

10. posted by Jason at January 29, 2008 6:38 pm :
    

    They’ve made the buildings and units smaller because they expect to rent, not sell. The condo market in Richmond is practically non-existant. Most “condos” that have been built in the past five years are either vacant, rented, or have for rent signs on them. The units depreciate in value as soon as the first unit is rented. You’d need to be a little silly to buy in a development where renting isn’t contractually prohibited or cost-prohibitive for the builder. People who did buy will have to sell below purchase, if they can sell at all. This is not a short term down turn. It’s reality. It’s the reality of the microscopic demand for condos in this city coupled with the fact that the very few potential buyers that exist want a unit that is larger with special features like being in a high rise, views, upscale interior, etc.

    Yet apartments are all that’s been built or that is being proposed for the close-in neighborhoods. The city seems more than willing to accommodate any developer by pushing R-63 zoning and/or SUPs, despite objections by the majority of residents of the neighborhoods affected. They don’t have to live with what they approve, so they don’t care. If it works they’ll want credit, if it doesn’t, they’ll say we tried and the city isn’t any worse off as a whole (just that neighborhood).

    By not building towers and instead building run of the mill low-rise apartments and using lower grade materials, they will save tons of construction money. This will enable them to hold onto the dream of selling the units for $250+/sqft. But, just in case they don’t, they’ll now be set up to accept even a HUD check for the tiny, low-quality units and still make a proft.

    Anything being built in neighborhoods like Spring Hill and Manchester that doesn’t all but guarantee owner-occupation is like taking one step forward and two steps back. It will set these neighborhoods up to become off-campus dorms at best and bigger ghettos than ever before at worst.

    The only construction that makes sense around here for long-term prosperity and sustainability is: 1) what was initially proposed, i.e steel and glass mid/high rises with larger, upscale units; and 2) quality single family detached houses.

    Sorry for the long rant.

11. posted by Urgent: Development Rears Ugly Head Again « SpringhillRVA.org at January 11, 2010 12:15 pm :
    

    [...] just been informed that the ill conceived Manchester on the James project is once again on the City Council agenda. Although the project was approved last year, the slump in [...]

Leave a Comment