40 Responses to “Shoppes at Forest Hill info”

1. posted by D. Charles at June 25, 2008 10:11 am :
   

   Are these supposed to look like the apartments at the intersection of WH Blvd. and Midlo. tpke.?

   They’re hideous! Our neighborhood deserves much better; can we have a do-over?

2. posted by Phil Licking at June 25, 2008 10:28 am :
   

   Good find on the brochure and thanks for posting! I’m anxious to see the tenant mix. Could be a real improvement for the area in that it gives us more local shopping options without having to drive.

3. posted by Common Sense Mom at June 25, 2008 10:33 am :
   

   I’m fine with this development going in but this design is fug-ly. Did this company stop buying design books in the 70’s? This looks like a housing project.

   Solid brick box design, huge concrete balconies, concrete dividers between the balconies, alternating triangle shaped dormer windows….. REALLY?

4. posted by Jennifer C. at June 25, 2008 10:54 am :
   

   Once again, I’m in agreement with CSM. Yech.

5. posted by Peter Hubbel at June 25, 2008 12:55 pm :
   

   I think the architect copied the Good Shepherd school building…..nothing like a fake mansard roof over a box. WOW.

6. posted by Just Some Dude at June 25, 2008 1:57 pm :
   

   Is the RRHA into designing commercial spaces now? Because that’s what I feel like I’m looking at.

7. posted by F'Hill friend at June 25, 2008 2:47 pm :
   

   Yeah, I also hate the design. Furthermore, this seems like a huge amount of crap to stuff into what is essentially a fairly small space.

8. posted by willis at June 25, 2008 4:49 pm :
   

   Gotta agree….I like the fact that it is in keeping with an urban atmosphere and the building is placed on the street and the parking is in the back but whew she’s ugly! Good site plan, now let’s see some more creativity in the design…

9. posted by David at June 25, 2008 5:21 pm :
   

   willis,

   the building is not placed on the street, it is set back from the street, with parking in front…

10. posted by gruntled at June 25, 2008 5:30 pm :
    

    The building isn’t on the street, though: the plan shows the parking out front like Blockbuster and Walgreens. What is with these developers that we have to have this $hiteous homogenized excuse for architecture?

    This is awful.

11. posted by Common Sense Mom at June 26, 2008 7:56 am :
    

    So is this thing set in stone or can the neighborhoods and surrounding businesses weigh in?

    My husband looked at this and immediately said “I can’t believe Westover Hills is allowing this ugly thing to go in.”

    Can anything be done?

12. posted by Lee at June 26, 2008 8:36 am :
    

    I have to agree with the others, the design is absolutely horrendous and it does seem like alot to fit in that small lot. However, I’m glad to see that the project has plans to move ahead. We just another architect!

13. posted by DW at June 26, 2008 12:20 pm :
    

    Ditto. This is boxy and sterile with not one ounce of personality. Can’t wait to shop there………….I’m emailing the developer with a link to these comments.

14. posted by Dan at June 26, 2008 12:25 pm :
    

    You have to question the judgment of an architect who thinks this type of building will be attractive to $1500-per-month renters.

15. posted by Dan at June 26, 2008 12:38 pm :
    

    Residents of these “shoppes” (ugh) will not be able to turn left to get onto westbound Forest Hill Ave., will they? If so, I smell a lot more accidents on this stretch of road.

    Of course, forcing everyone to go eastbound on FHA wouldn’t make things much better. I can envision a lot of vehicles using the alley behind Walgreens and the dollar store to cut over to Dunston/Jahnke. And we know how much trouble *that* area already is…

16. posted by devonshire res at June 26, 2008 4:22 pm :
    

    I have absolutely no problem with the use of the property. I think more eyes equals safety and I look forward to more shopping options (one can only dream of good a bakery) close to home, but I do have a couple of general suggestions.

    -Please move the buildings up to the road and put the parking in the rear.
    -Please include some bike racks.
    -Put more landscaping in front of the building.
    -An area for outdoor dining if a restaurant/coffee shop locates there. Don’t expect a four foot sidewalk to accomodate this.

    And then there is he building design. Wow, where do I start.
    -Windows on the side of the buildings?
    -Where are the entrances for the apartments? All I see are shop fronts on the first floor.
    -Vary the facades to look like a series of townhomes or something just to break up the monotony. Carytown is a decent example.
    -Maybe some nice awnings versus the billboards on the fronts of balconies.
    -And the balconies…. They remind me of the ones that get all rusty and ugly on a beach hotel. The building could step back and the balconies could be part of the roof of the lower level.
    -A signature element is needed that will help make this a place. Even variations in the brick would work.
    -Maybe a little colonial in style (personal preference), but take notes from the homes in the neighborhood. They are not all from the 70’s and we wouldn’t want our commercial buildongs to look that way.

    Overall, good use bad design, actually one of the worst designs I have seen in a long time and I work in the field. Here’s to hoping that the design improves. I personally think it would help with the rental of the space. Invest a little more in the design and get even more back in the form of neighborhood support.

17. posted by Common Sense Mom at June 26, 2008 4:55 pm :
    

    I have to weigh in again…. I drove down Forest Hill actually paying attention to the buildings in that block and realized they ALL look like they were built in the 60’s and 70’s. I guess the developer could argue that he is matching the architecture of the area. Still, I would be embarassed to put my name on this thing. The CVS across the street has way more curb appeal. What does Kathy G think of this?

18. posted by Mike S. at June 26, 2008 5:02 pm :
    

    The apartments are planned to be 2,000 square feet, very large for $1,500. One can only hope the design will remain brick, I would bet they end up with some type of vinyl siding. But, still looks a lot better than what is across the street! Dibs on the apartment right next to the Blockbuster!

19. posted by JC at June 26, 2008 6:00 pm :
    

    i’m waiting for “pop” to chime in and tell everyone that they should be ashamed for questioning development.

20. posted by Dan at June 26, 2008 8:54 pm :
    

    If square footage was the only measure of an apartment’s attractiveness, then $1500 for a 2000 square foot apartment might be worth it. But these units scream “poor design” left and right. Mike S., the apartment next to Blockbuster is all yours!

21. posted by Laura Daab at June 27, 2008 11:26 am :
    

    Inappropriate new construction and infill designs on residential AND commercial properties are a real threat to our historic neighborhoods.

    A group of us are working with city council to promote the use of pattern books in our city. Pattern books were widely used in the 19th and early 20th Centuries and they are currently enjoying a big comeback in many historic cities around the country.

    Below are some links to good articles about pattern books and usage.

    The first is Norfolk’s pattern book:

    http://www.norfolk.gov/Planning/comehome/Norfolk_Pattern_Book/index.html

    The second is the Habitat for Humanity’s pattern book and usage in Savannah, GA:

    http://www.usatoday.com/life/lifestyle/home/2008-03-06-at-home-savannah_N.htm

    The last two articles are also good stuff:

    http://leylandalliance.com/news_article.htm?id=31

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/24/AR2006022400823_2.html

    If anyone is interested in learning more about our efforts, or wants to get involved, contact me at laura@mysterydinner.com or 804-649-1913.

22. posted by Laura Daab at June 27, 2008 11:37 am :
    

    Here’s the actual link to the Habitat for Humanity Pattern Book of Neighborly Houses:

    http://www.classicist.org/resources/habitat-pattern-book

23. posted by Laura Daab at June 27, 2008 11:42 am :
    

    I know that I’m posting like a fiend, but there’s so much good stuff. The same architect firm that designed the pattern books for Norfolk and Habitat have worked on an award winning project in Richmond already.

    It is the Randolph neighborhood town homes project done by the RRHA. Urban Design Associates were the architects.

    Here’s a link:

    http://www.designadvisor.org/gallery/randolph.html

24. posted by D. Charles at June 27, 2008 12:35 pm :
    

    Pattern books?! Is this 1908 or 2008? We need less “phoney coloney” and more innovative architecture that is of today; modern, energy efficient and not wasteful in its materiality through the creation of false fronts and imitative collnades. We should challenge our community to design buildings that speak in today’s venacular, not a memory the past for the past’s sake. Although this developer surley will not be up for this task, we should demand it from those who follow.

    http://www.myneighborhoodinsider.com/content/view/25/34/

25. posted by Laura Daab at June 27, 2008 2:46 pm :
    

    Sorry D., that site is precisely the kind of cheap, pre-fab looking stuff that many folks here in the Old & Historic Districts are railing against. It simply does not look good in any context, particularly Old & Historic neighborhoods.

    Have you actually looked at the literature that I posted? These pattern books are not “phoney coloney.” They are thoughtful, well researched and faithful to it’s surrounding areas they were made for, while using contemporary materials and subtle design elements that do speak to the time when they were built.

    Many of these pattern books are also very green. Look particularly at the Habitat book. There is a whole section devoted to energy efficient design and green materials.

    If you had looked at the links, I don’t think that you would be as dismissive.

26. posted by gruntled at June 28, 2008 11:33 am :
    

    How about some 30′ and 40’s Streamline inspired architecture? That would actually be in keeping with the age of the neighborhood.

27. posted by Common Sense Mom at June 28, 2008 12:30 pm :
    

    I happen to love the older early 1990’s style homes….my home, for example, was built in 1906, it has charm that is rarely seen in today’s architectural styles. I would greatly prefer anything close to these pattern book ideas. They are awesome!

    The current design looks like something the 1960’s puked up and walked away from… It belongs in the cheap rental section of Myrtle Beach’s Grand Strand! I stayed in a nicer looking place my junior year in high school during beach week…. I could go on and on.

28. posted by Common Sense Mom at June 28, 2008 12:31 pm :
    

    typo…. should read 1900’s style homes…

    I vote for an edit button here!

29. posted by pagalina at June 28, 2008 9:55 pm :
    

    wow, those are some dumpy looking buildings they’re planning for that spot. Why couldn’t they pick up design elements from fan row houses, for example? not slavish copies but buildings with handsome and thoughtful design. current design is enough to almost make me nostalgic for the old mccrory’s ;)

30. posted by DW at June 30, 2008 9:52 am :
    

    Check out the new retail/residential complex at the corner of Meadow and Cary. Similar concept–retail on the bottom with apts above. MUCH MORE appealing that what is planned for FH.

31. posted by M. Linkous at July 3, 2008 7:05 pm :
    

    Does anyone know if the surrounding neighborhoods have any chance of meeting with the developer to try and help this project have some curb appeal? I realize that we’re no Libby & Grove, but there is more potential there than the plans I have seen. Thanks, Melissa

32. posted by D. at July 9, 2008 2:22 pm :
    

    I was surprized when the old empty building was razed and this ‘development’ was announced - seems like it happened without a chance for neighborhood input (tho I could have missed it!). At any rate, it IS a disappointing design that looks cheap and boring and doesn’t lift up the neighborhood at all (unless we really DO get a bakery!). Here’s hoping for some imporovement to the facade.

33. posted by Ron at July 10, 2008 7:19 am :
    

    A couple of recent posts are coming in at the end of a long process. The architect for the project appeared before the Westover merchants Association, and the Westover Hills Neighborhood Association, and contacted Council Member graziano. The neighborhood was kept informed through the process, which is a “by right” development, meaning it does not need Planning Commission or City Council approval.
    It is ugly.

34. posted by Dan at July 11, 2008 10:58 am :
    

    If I understand Ron correctly, the Merchants’ Association, WHNA, and Ms. Graziano all think these buildings are suitable for our neighborhood. Wow.

35. posted by Ron at July 11, 2008 12:00 pm :
    

    From what I understand, the associations enbraced the concept, before there were specific achitectural renderings. I don’t think they have taken a position on the appearance issues.

36. posted by Val Murphey at July 11, 2008 2:42 pm :
    

    The Westover Hills Neighborhood Association heard a presentation from the architect over a year ago, and the board was positive about the use of the property. However, the board has not taken any official position on this project or on the new “look” of the building just recently made available on the real estate developer’s web site.

37. posted by jon at July 11, 2008 3:09 pm :
    

    Looking at the plans, it appears that if they are stick building these units, then they would not be able to put in any sort of restaurant / bakery into the commercial space because of the apartments above. My guess? Nail salons and check cashing businesses. I’m not too thrilled by either.

38. posted by Just Some Dude at July 11, 2008 5:45 pm :
    

    Having residential upstairs shouldn’t prevent a restaurant from going in on the first floor. I suspect you’d see things more on the level of a Subway or something similar than a full-service sit-down restaurant, but that’s just a guess.

39. posted by Noel at August 13, 2008 11:30 am :
    

    I reached out to CB Ellis b/c the thought of this being built (as shown in the flyer) really bums me out. There is so much potential with this space! Anyway, he suggested we organize our complaints with the architect. Does anyone know the architect? This was the CBE response:

    ————

    I have read some of the comments. We at CB Richard Ellis are in no way associated with the design and construction of the project. We have been hired to lease (hopefully pre-lease) the commercial space.

    A large majority of these comments are extremely negative, I know that. Your community group knows the architect, I would suggest they contact him with constructive criticism.

    I too would like something built that everyone can be proud of and support.

    Good luck pursuing the architect angle.

    -Rob

40. posted by David at August 15, 2008 10:46 am :
    

    Lee Wienckowski

Leave a Comment