Vote: Are You In Support of City Proposed Horse Trade Enabling 16 Story Riverfront Towers in Manchester? News by Michael C. Hild - September 20, 2016September 21, 201657 Mayor Jones is proposing a horse trade. And the trade is to be made in Manchester. The proposed deal that has been struck by the City Administration and Fountainhead Properties’ South Canal, LLC is to occur just West of Hull Street at the foot of The Mayo Bridge. And it could lead to at least two 16 story towers, perhaps more. The deal as explained to me, and from what I could read about the project, is comprised of the following components: The City will trade a 1.1 acre sub-parcel of City owned land to South Canal, LLC at a value appraised at $260,000. The value for this land is justified at such a low amount despite being riverfront property because it is viewed as inaccessible due to a clouded easement across South Canal LLC’s parcels. South Canal, LLC will agree to fix the city owned bridge at an estimated cost of $800,000, thereby providing automobile and emergency vehicle access to the South Canal development. The property will be rezoned from RF1 to B-4C to enable larger towers than could otherwise be built with the existing zoning. The proposed tower(s) are to be no larger than 16 stories. This new zoning enables the towers to accommodate somewhere between 400-600 units and would allow for river and city views above the existing 40 foot high flood wall. The full details for the proposal can be found in the attached documents: ord-no application-form-applicants-report proffered-conditions survey-parcel-diagram At first glance, the proposed development of the property does not appear to conflict with the City’s Riverfront Development Plan. The plan clearly shows development at the “South Canal Lofts” and is silent on what should be done with the City owned property proposed to be traded to South Canal, LLC (gray area to the left). The property would increase real-estate tax collections for the City which is desperately needed for schools, infrastructure, and countless other city services. The project would also add more housing in Manchester on a parcel that is currently an eyesore. With that having been said, I suspect some will take issue with such large towers, especially those whose river/city views will be impeded by the proposed structures. The proposal is scheduled for an October 10th, 2016 City Council Public Hearing Date at 6PM. So folks, what do you think? Vote: Are You In Support of City Proposed Horse Trade Enabling 16 Story Riverfront Towers in Manchester? Yes (77%, 280 Votes) No (23%, 86 Votes) Total Voters: 366 Loading ...
RT @DogtownDish: Vote: Are You In Support of City Proposed Horse Trade Enabling 16 Story Riverfront Towers in Manchester? #rva https://t.co… Reply
RT @DogtownDish: Vote: Are You In Support of City Proposed Horse Trade Enabling 16 Story Riverfront Towers in Manchester? #rva https://t.co… Reply
RT @DogtownDish: Vote: Are You In Support of City Proposed Horse Trade Enabling 16 Story Riverfront Towers in Manchester? #rva https://t.co… Reply
How about requiring the developer to repair the bridge if the want to develop the lot they already own? Why is the City giving away assets? Reply
If you read the article again, you’ll see that bridge repair is part of the deal: “South Canal, LLC will agree to fix the city owned bridge at an estimated cost of $800,000, thereby providing automobile and emergency vehicle access to the South Canal development.” Reply
Not a detriment to the public since there is no ground level view there but it will be to those who presently have a view of the City at the condos nearby. All in all seems a fine deal. I doubt 1.1 acres is enough to do a separate development on so why not? Any way the City can attach a demand for restaurant space on the river side? In the entire “River City” there are only two restaurant locations that address the river… Legend in Manchester and the two restaurants at Rockett’s Landing. Reply
How do you expect us to get tax money to do that? These towers would help the schools in both the long term and the short term. It wouldn’t take long for $800k to be earned back from real estate taxes. We’d be denying our schools millions in funding over the next two decades if we missed this opportunity. Reply
I think it is a good deal, but would like to see fewer floors that would block the views behind them. Buildings should be “stepped back” to allow a view over top and to get the highest value for land further from the river (IE you can build back from the new buildings and still have a river view). The views between Legend and the river is that of a junk yard right now, so any new development will be a positive. Any new private money just portends additional private money, and brings in tax revenue too. Reply
Every city resident should have a problem with the city constantly giving away assets. If you want to develop anything in surrounding counties, the developer must make appropriate improvements to infrastructure regarding access. The localities don’t pay for it. The developer does. Reply
How many 16 story towers are there in the counties? I’m pretty sure you won’t find anything in the counties that give the same return on taxes per square foot. Not even close. Comparing this with the counties is apples and oranges. Reply
I respect your concerns, but they are really misguided. The city isn’t “giving away assets”. Developers are not required to improve the bridge as it is structurally sound and large enough to accommodate increased traffic. This is a wise move by the city because it will improve the bridge, vastly delaying its inevitable cost of repairs, and add exits that will divert traffic in order to ease potential congestion. Look at some of the roads in many urban areas with lots of new development and you’ll see that there is no requirement to improve or widen them. Surrounding counties are often building new structures to which there are no established roads, so of course they are required to establish access to these building from main roads. This is a great opportunity for the city as it saves them money and increases value to all of the real estate in the area which causes an influx in property tax. As far as the city giving away an asset, is this one acre plot to which there is zero possibility of access really an asset when you consider no other developer would, for those very reasons, ever consider purchasing this land from the city? This is almost certainly the only way the city will ever receive any form of payment for this unusable space. Reply
NO MORE SUPERSIZED HIGH RISES!! we need a decent grocery store, gas stations, etc. and how about help the school that needed funding??? This is absurd! Reply
City View will contain a grocery store along Hull between 4th and 5th Streets. Last I checked, Richmond is a city where high-rises are very appropriate. They also happen to generate taxes to pay for things like schools, unlike vacant city lots. Reply
So, the city will give away pieces of Manchester but decline a revitalization of the Hull St corridor? Agreed on the need for a grocery store. Reply
RT @DogtownDish: Vote: Are You In Support of City Proposed Horse Trade Enabling 16 Story Riverfront Towers in Manchester? #rva https://t.co… Reply
I’ve got no problem with this. It’s a great location for tall towers, would help the city, and would help Manchester Reply
This is too far over to block Legend’s view. It may, however, enhance it. South Reynolds’s residential and office tower will block the view, though. Reply
How about some commercial development, actual storefronts for shops and restaurants…. adequate parking per tenant. Reply
I’m inclined to agree with Justin Sheppard’s comments. I don’t see why the city needs to surrender a sweetheart deal to South Canal to incent them to fund improvements to infrastructure (a bridge) that only serves their site. Let them buy the extra parcel for the assessed $260K if they want it as part of their assemblage. I’m also untrusting to have Mayor Jones continue to give away assets the last few months of his term. He’s proven to be someone we can’t trust. So is he parting with assets because it truly is in the best interest of the city? Or does he have backroom deals setup to ensure himself a soft landing in the private sector? Reply
Thankfully, South Reynolds has plans for a grocery store fronting Hull between 4th and 5th Streets. Regardless, the lot in question would not be appropriate for such retail. This development is on the wrong side of the flood wall to allow for a riverfront restaurant but something to serve the flood wall walk could be nice, if supported. This tower would be too far over to obstruct Legend’s view (unlike the proposed South Reynolds towers) though it could certainly enhance it. Anyone scoffing at the price of the bridge upgrades clearly has not paid much attention to typical infrastructure costs. This sounds like a great deal for the city who would otherwise be responsible for some of that cost. Reply
Legally, the city is required to maintain the bridge if there are going to be people on the other side of it. Really, this deal saves the city $540,000 in bridge repair. I think that’s pretty cool. Reply
Great development proposal, more households to support the proposed shopping center “Shoppes at City View” https://www.thalhimer.com/properties/the-shoppes-at-city-view South Canal will block Legend’s view, but the next phase of City View will. Reply
People are complaining about so many things on here. “What about a grocery store,” “What about the bridge,” etc. The large the development on the river the more likely those things are to get fixed. Adding a 2 story development isn’t going to bring demand for a grocery store. It isn’t going to make a northsider see how good of an investment fixing the bridge can be. If this gets approved, it might change my mind from looking for a house in Church Hill to looking in Manchester. If it gets derailed because of NIMByism, I just might say fuck it and move to a city that doesn’t hate progress. Reply
Proposed riverfront development in Manchester: https://t.co/DdghPLcja4 What are your thoughts? #JamesRiver #RVA Reply
Thankfully, South Reynolds has plans for a grocery store fronting Hull between 4th and 5th Streets. Regardless, the lot in question would not be appropriate for such retail. This development is on the wrong side of the flood wall to allow for a riverfront restaurant but something to serve the flood wall walk could be nice, if supported. This tower would be too far over to obstruct Legend’s view (unlike the proposed South Reynolds towers) though it could certainly enhance it. Anyone scoffing at the price of the bridge upgrades clearly has not paid much attention to typical infrastructure costs. This sounds like a great deal for the city who would otherwise be responsible for some of that cost. Reply
I hope this deal goes through. People in this town seem to hate change. The city only has but so much space. Develop the property and the city will reap the bennifits in the long run from taxes. Some people want the city to grow as long as it is NIMBY. Manchester is a diamond in the rough. I am glad to see somone taking interest in property that has been neglected for years. Reply
Grocers & Retailers eager to open shop pending approval of City Proposed Horse Trade #Manchester #RVA https://t.co/0Qj2HC3rdB Reply
Grocery stores and retailers look at demographics before even considering opening shop in any area. This development will add hundreds upon hundreds of new residents, making it appealing to grocery stores, which are so desperately needed in the area. It’s a cart before the horse situation. Neither the city or the developers can force a company to move to this area, but they are making all the right moves to attract the businesses Manchester needs. Reply
