The Waterford at Rocketts Landing sits prominently along the curve of East Main Street headed toward the rest of Rocketts Landing. (Photo courtesy PRG/KBS)
It’s hard to miss the newest section of Rocketts Landing – and the next section after that may be even more eye-catching.
Jutting out prominently along the curve of East Main Street, The Waterford at Rocketts Landing is nearing completion and earlier this month began to welcome its first residents.
The $42 million, 204-unit apartment building sits at 4501 E. Main St. It was developed by WVS Cos., the mastermind of Rocketts Landing. Its partner in the deal is PRG, a Philadelphia-based firm that invests in many of WVS’ projects and also acts as property manager.
WVS Principal Richard Souter said the five-story Waterford project has been underway for just under two years, with KBS as the contractor.
Richard Souter
They recently received certificates of occupancy for the lower two floors, allowing residents to begin moving in. Souter said a delay in the elevator installation was one of the last main holdups for the upper three floors, which are expected to be completed in the coming weeks. The complex also has a sizable parking garage of around 250 spaces.
Souter said the average rent for the building’s one-bedroom units is $1,450, and two-bedrooms average around $1,800. He said those units with Main Street-fronting views of the river and downtown skyline will fetch the higher end of those averages.
“It’s at the perfect arc of the river, so the views are stunning,” he said.
While the Waterford has taken shape on part of the southern end of the nearly 4-acre parcel, there’s room on the site for one more phase right next to it – and Souter said they’re planning to go tall.
On the drawing board is a 12- to 14-story apartment tower, which would be the tallest building in Rocketts. Again, Souter said they’re drawing it up with the river and skyline views in mind.
“Those views are so lovely it warrants us to go bigger,” he said.
That project is still in planning and its timeline hinges on economic conditions.
“It needs the market to cooperate for it to start,” Souter said.
The Waterford at Rocketts Landing sits prominently along the curve of East Main Street headed toward the rest of Rocketts Landing. (Photo courtesy PRG/KBS)
It’s hard to miss the newest section of Rocketts Landing – and the next section after that may be even more eye-catching.
Jutting out prominently along the curve of East Main Street, The Waterford at Rocketts Landing is nearing completion and earlier this month began to welcome its first residents.
The $42 million, 204-unit apartment building sits at 4501 E. Main St. It was developed by WVS Cos., the mastermind of Rocketts Landing. Its partner in the deal is PRG, a Philadelphia-based firm that invests in many of WVS’ projects and also acts as property manager.
WVS Principal Richard Souter said the five-story Waterford project has been underway for just under two years, with KBS as the contractor.
Richard Souter
They recently received certificates of occupancy for the lower two floors, allowing residents to begin moving in. Souter said a delay in the elevator installation was one of the last main holdups for the upper three floors, which are expected to be completed in the coming weeks. The complex also has a sizable parking garage of around 250 spaces.
Souter said the average rent for the building’s one-bedroom units is $1,450, and two-bedrooms average around $1,800. He said those units with Main Street-fronting views of the river and downtown skyline will fetch the higher end of those averages.
“It’s at the perfect arc of the river, so the views are stunning,” he said.
While the Waterford has taken shape on part of the southern end of the nearly 4-acre parcel, there’s room on the site for one more phase right next to it – and Souter said they’re planning to go tall.
On the drawing board is a 12- to 14-story apartment tower, which would be the tallest building in Rocketts. Again, Souter said they’re drawing it up with the river and skyline views in mind.
“Those views are so lovely it warrants us to go bigger,” he said.
That project is still in planning and its timeline hinges on economic conditions.
“It needs the market to cooperate for it to start,” Souter said.
What are the plans to improve access & egress to the area? It’s nice to build big pretty buildings but as a resident of the area, I’d appreciate some planning around the quality of life in Rocketts.
This topic comes up often and the RTD has covered it a few times. In short there are no plans and that’s likely due to the area bordering two jurisdictions that don’t play together well. All of the traffic and congestion originates from unfettered development and lack of planning in Henrico County, which people blame on Richmond where it bottlenecks into the urban street grid. Due to the CSX rail line that runs parallel to Dock St and then above E Main St. there isn’t much that can be done aside from divert more traffic to Williamsburg Rd., which would… Read more »
This right here. The worst thing about living in Rocketts Landing is the traffic down RT 5 that rivals the sound of the trainyard (the trains are tolerable) and then the resulting backups on Dock Street. Williamsburg Ave. is built to handle the volume but lacks the feeder roads with the bottleneck at Fulton and insufficient connectivity from RT 5. It would be great to see improvements to New Osbourne Turnpike/Newton Rd and the underpass through the trainyard to redirect a lot of this traffic to the appropriate road. A dream would be for a new bridge connecting lower East… Read more »
The Richmond 300 Master Plan includes planning for a new east-west bridge to cross the river south of Manchester, if memory serves, arond Bellmeade (I don’t believe it’s as far south as Bells Road) – so the city is already planning for it. Am guessing it would require state transportation funding that would come to the city via the Central Virginia Transit Authority.
Either way – there are plans for just such a bridge.
The state is wasting $100M to rebuild the 14th Street bridge. They should build one south of the city in its stead.
Thanks, Justin. It’s very frustrating…
What you say may be true about Henrico, but I have lived in both jurisdictions, and I can say with CERTAINTY that the City of Richmond mismanages their obligations to their citizenry, and are fiscally irresponsible, ignorant, or both. Do not allow the City of Richmond rot to infect the surrounding counties by combining jurisdictions. It appears Henrico could work with the City to expand Osborne TNPK (Rt 5) to 4 lanes and add stoplights – that will not help the area Bill is speaking of – that is ALL City. Williamsburg Road appears to be strictly the City as… Read more »
Victoria, to your point regarding a new river crossing, see my comment above. It’s in the Richmond 300 master plan.
Almost all of the new housing in Rocketts Landing IS in Henrico… Thankfully, a great thing about Rocketts Landing is it is walkable and connected to transit, unlike the suburban sprawl up RT 5. The issues with traffic are not originating from Richmond, hence why the solutions need to be handled cooperatively.
Victoria, for this corridor, it’s entirely a failure of the jurisdictions to work together because the city has zero housing South of Tobacco Row until this brand new building. Everything on Rt. 5 in Rocketts, aside from the two restaurants is in Henrico (the city line is just South of Orleans St.). Rocketts specifically setup their development to put owner occupied housing in the county due to lower utility costs, lower property taxes and Henrico Schools. With all of that new housing, plus everything happening further South along Rt 5 in Henrico, it has created traffic in Richmond due to… Read more »
The utilities are provided by the City.
This seems like a valid concern, but I don’t think this is Rocketts fault. Indeed, it is more of the solution. New Urbanists love things like Rocketts and the Old-Urbanist-cryto-communists and or Puritans hate them — but, really, one could see bike-commuting being very doable from Rocketts — which one cannot say about Varina. But, really, I am not sure Richmonders should be complaining about poor policies out of Henrico — Henrico mostly means success and they are likely doing what counties do — waiting for some kind of critical mass to make the economics work better — one of… Read more »
It would have been beneficial to the readers to point out this property is in the City of Richmond and not Henrico County. It gets complicated at Rocketts Landing to know were the boundaries are located.
Is there no architectural review board in Richmond? This building is a blight on the skyline. And now they want to add another, taller, building?
First – quoting John McEnroe at Wimbledon in 1980 – you can NOT be serious! Second – the CAR covers boundary-drawn Old and Historic Districts. No such district exists for Rocketts, nor is there need for one there. Were Fulton not completely obliterated and wiped off the Richmond map in 1970 (including even the streets!) – perhaps there would have been an O&HD established that would have covered Fulton/Rocketts. However, the Urban Renewal-inspired soup-to-nuts bulldozing of Fulton renders that discussion moot. Third — Absolutely and emphatically YES! A TALLER building! Richmond is a CITY. Cities evolve, they grow, they change.… Read more »
Peter, if developers were concerned about “Richmond Keeps Rising”, they would be building condos not apartments. To create a true community, residents must have buy-in. Creating a thriving metro area requires stable communities of resident stakeholders. You will not get that buy in with thousands of 20 & 30 somethings renting in the “Richmond Keeps (hi)Rising.”
What makes the Fan area so desirable is not all the 6-10 story new apartment buildings, but the 100 + yr old living history museum HOMES that create the sense of community. Richmond should Rise, just not (hi)rise.
Why not have both? The Fan isn’t going anywhere. Neither is Church Hill. Ditto Jackson Ward. Why would you want to constrain Richmond’s vast, still untapped potential to grow and finally become a legitimate major city? Victoria, I’m asking this earnestly, not as an attack: what do you have against high-rises? RVA has had them for well over 100 years, and not just downtown office buildings in the Financial District or the CNB Building on Broad. They’ve been every bit as much a part of this city’s fabric for a century as rowhouses in our older, historic neighborhoods. Hi-rises in,… Read more »
EDIT – ‘2037 tri-centennial’, not ‘centennial’ – apologies for the poor proof-reading & editing on my part.
Peter, thanks for the thoughtful response. Personally, I have travelled the east quite a bit for work, and have battled the traffic in DC for years. So my perspective on “density” comes from my appreciation of the quality of life we have in Richmond – in part due to the “small town feel”. I will continue to fight against apartments density to maintain the 10 minutes of RVA’s alleged “rush hour” traffic. I do not want Short Pump and 360 to be the standard for all of RVA. I look at what happened to Fredericksburg, and I cry. If RVA… Read more »
Spreading out low density isn’t how you keep areas from becoming like Short Pump. Short Pump is the definition of low density development and it’s why that area is super congested. A 12-14 story building in Rocketts isn’t far fetched given their condos are 6-7 stories and townhomes are 3-4 stories. The only way you get more condos now is to build apartments first and after 5 years then convert them to condos because you cannot build a new condo building now due to financing challenges.
“If RVA remains relatively stable in population”? Huh? We cannot stop people moving to Richmond or having children. Why do you think the RVA population will remain “stable”?
The reality is people are moving here and therefore we have to deal with that. By only building SF homes we will definitely become a sprawl region. There is nothing wrong with apartments. Not everyone can or should own a housing unit. Not everyone is the same and different housing options should still be constructed for the various demands.
I agree completely about for-sale housing’s importance. However, financing laws make it very difficult to build them from scratch. Non-refundable deposits cannot be taken by the developer until drywall is installed. That’s very late in the building and finance process. The best solution is to build rental housing at condo quality for conversion after five years. I think you’ll see such conversions very soon.
Sue don’t be alarmed at the down votes. Most of the commenters work for developers, so yeah, their paychecks are predicated on “Richmond Keeps Rising”
And how exactly do you know this? Do you have actual proof? Or is this a generalization and mischaracterization aimed at either bolstering your particular narrative or deflecting from legitimate FACTUAL debate/discussion about the TOPIC?
And kindly spare me the ad hominum snark, yeah? I’m happy to talk about actual facts related to the topic, whether it’s about this project or the broader subject of Richmond’s growth.
Yup, you nailed it! It has nothing to do with reacting to narrow-minded comments…
“People Disagree with my bad takes? They MUST be planted trolls!” No, Maybe you just have bad takes.
Incorrect. There are many lifelong Richmonders here like myself who support and welcome all this growth. Growing up in the 90s I remember how blighted and run down the city looked. As a millennial in the 2010s I was planning on moving out of the state entirely but something changed… Fast-forward to 2023, I’m still here because the city IS growing and thriving! It’s just keeps on getting better and better BECAUSE of all of this growth! As long as it keeps up the momentum, I don’t plan on going anywhere anytime soon.
Yup. Not a developer and don’t work for one. As someone who grew up in DC and spent a number of years in New York, I know what city life is like. Before Richmond, I spent a decade in Asheville, NC – when it was still a small town – so I know that vibe. IMHO it’s exciting to see Richmond grow and attain some of the cosmopolitan perks that big cities have. It seems to have done so without losing its historical character. I simply down-vote comments that seem to make no sense.
Victoria, it’s laughable you think the majority of people downvoting work in the development industry. I have zero to do with the construction industry, I enjoy dense urban areas, I’ve owned in the city since 2004, and I want more options to be walkable for my community. Density, when built to prioritize pedestrians, keeps an area’s livability and desirability high, which is why I want those things for The City. It’s that simple.
They need to build this as soon as possible due to the housing shortage. And it should be 18 to 25 stories tall.
I really don’t see the hype of this thing blocking anyone’s view in that the land on top of the hill of this project is a half abandoned railroad yard covered in decaying scrap metal that is for sale.
Carl – spot on. This building won’t block views — particularly from those who lobbied against the construction of Echo Harbor. The hillside vantage points are largely northwest of the site of the proposed tower and river views from those vantage points are 100% unobstructed because the bend also falls to the west of the proposed building.
I would like to point out that originally Rocketts Landing was beginning to be developed by Bill Abeloff. He was a Richmond developer, who soon after the project started, passed away. He was a wonderful, wonderful man who cared about the people that were moving into this development and would have been the best Resource we have unfortunately that did not happen. But I feel it’s important to give him credit.
100% agree with you, Judy. Well said!
He was also one of the original people who worked on transforming the Tabaco Row. A true visionary. I wish he had the chance to see the fruits of his labor. I believe there is a memorial to him in Rocketts.