Commission amends Richmond downtown plan to allow taller buildings along James River
Richmond's Planning Commission voted overwhelmingly today to amend the Downtown Master Plan to allow taller buildings along the riverfront than the plan now permits.
The commission also amended the plan to say the city could protect views of the river by limiting the height and size of buildings, on a case-by-case basis, as long as officials considered the building size limits outlined for specific areas of the downtown in the plan.
The action was taken in two votes: 9-0 and 7-2.
The proposed new limits say buildings along the river from Shockoe Bottom east should rise to heights no more than four to six stories above the top of the flood plain. The plan now limits buildings in that part of town to no more than four to six stories above the ground.
The difference is about 21 feet at the site below Libby Hill Park, where developer George Ross' proposed high-rise project has drawn strong opposition for its effect on the view from the park of the James River.
The amendments now go to the City Council, which can enact them, change them or refuse them.
Reader Reactions
reluctantly, i have to agree with joey.
i’m what most of you would probably call an “environmentalist wacko”, but seriously, in richmond, where is there a good, unobstructed river view from the downtown side? (with the exception of the view from libby hill park in church hill, and oregon hill has a few nice blocks of river view which will probably remain as is.)
i mean, unless you’re right on the river, like at tredegar or brown’s island near the canal walk, and even in those places, such a view does not exist. every inch of space is more or less taken up with something, and there’s just no going back to a more pristine setting.
other than the two sites i mentioned, there really isn’t one viewshed on the city side that i can think of, that is worth saving.
(i am also assuming that we’re not talking about a high-rise in front of hollywood cemetery or maymont park and so forth ...)
truthfully, unless you’re right on it, you can’t see the river from the fan, can’t see it from downtown much, can’t see it from shockoe slip or bottom, heck, if you’re from out of town, you’d hardly know the james was even there!!!
so, even from my “wacko” perspective, as long as you don’t block that nice view from church hill, or oregon hill, or hurt the river itself, i say ... BUILD AWAY! the “damage” has already been done!
AND RICHMOND COULD USE A HIGHER PROFILE!!!
Come on people are you serious? Do you know how long its been sine Richmond has gotten a chance to get a new tallest building. If you take this away the skyline will never look signifcant with tall towers and only small chubby box towers. I for one am in favor of a new tallest built anywhere in the downtown area. I am sick and tired of the James Monroe tower being the tallest and looking like a soviet union building. Most cities have been getting repeatedly new tallest towers for years now and its about time for Richmond to play with the big boys and show them that we can play that game too. Its time to build high in the sky Richmond and show what you are capable of.
Another ill-considered decision. Supposedly the purpose of a master plan to to bring order to chaos. What this decision accomplishes is disorder which creates additional revenue streams for developers, attorneys, planning consultants, architects, and others who will inevitably earn fees as a direct result of the controversy they can encourage in the absence of specific limitations in the master plan. Another case of politicians failing to make the hard decision and “kicking the can further down the road” for the decisions to have to be dealt with, case-by-case, in the future at considerable taxpayer expense, I suspect.
“The commission also amended the plan to say the city could protect views of the river by limiting the height and size of buildings, on a case-by-case basis”
This sounds like a sure-fire formula for the bringing of lawsuits claiming that the planning code is being administered selectively as well as charges of undue influence being wielded.
Post a Comment(Requires free registration)
- Please avoid offensive, vulgar, or hateful language.
- Respect others.
- Use the "Flag Comment" link when necessary.
- See the Terms and Conditions for details.
Advertisement