Mid-day traffic on a recent week day along Hull Street. (BizSense file photos)
When I first moved to Manchester nearly seven years ago, the neighborhood seemed like a blank canvass.
I saw empty surface lots, a couple of old vacant warehouses and plenty of opportunity for growth and expansion.
Fast-forward to today. Manchester has apartments galore (and many more on the way), a Continental restaurant, Stella’s Grocery, Chipotle, ABC store, Hatch Food Hall and an outpost from Norfolk-based Benchtop Craft Brewing.
But with growth comes great responsibility to the people and businesses that have moved into the area, and, unfortunately, Richmond city leaders appear to have neglected their obligation to keep Manchester residents safe while approving wave after wave of new development projects for the neighborhood.
That’s why it’s time for the city to implement a moratorium on all development within Manchester – that is until planners can play catch-up to prioritize the protection of businesses and quality of life for residents.
I know, I know. I said the big bad “M”-word. But it’s truly necessary now more than ever, so, let me break this down.
Let’s start with the development.
One of the closed sidewalks in the neighborhood along Hull St.
Yes, new, shiny apartments and office buildings are good for the tax base versus an empty lot. Yes, to density and the smart reuse of vacant spaces to house people and businesses.
But why stop there?
Why not require developers to dedicate at least 20 percent of their project’s overall footprint to green space? Why not ask them to install green roofs or solar panels to help save on energy costs? Why not require stormwater enhancements and traffic-calming engineering to make it safer for residents wanting to frequent nearby breweries, restaurants and shops by foot?
These are asks the city chooses not to request or require of developers, thus allowing them to make up the rules as they go along to the frustration of the community seeking quality-of-life improvements to their neighborhood.
I mentioned green space earlier and there’s a reason for that – Manchester has very little of it left.
If there’s anything the pandemic showed us, it is the value and importance of green space and trees in an urban setting.
In 2020, Mayor Levar Stoney, during his bid for re-election, announced plans for several new parks to be developed on the Southside. Unfortunately, none of those parks will reach Manchester – probably because most of the viable property that could have been public park space has been claimed by developers and will soon birth more apartments. Furthermore, the lack of a proper parks master plan before Manchester’s building boom has made it difficult (and potentially more costly) to acquire property for public park space in the city’s fastest-growing neighborhood.
Then there’s the traffic and lack of pedestrian safety measures.
Pedestrians wait to cross Hull Street.
With the thousands of new apartments and the lack of mass transit options in South Richmond, traffic counts are growing, congestion is the norm and parking is at a premium since more people bring more vehicles. The result is a risky and terrifying experience for pedestrians wishing to cross Hull, Decatur, Maury or Commerce streets. In some cases, people are forced to walk on the street because developers are not required to keep sidewalks open during construction and have them blocked.
With increased traffic counts, the lack of longer street crossing times and protected signalized turn lanes for vehicle traffic further complicates matters – all but barricading residents to separate block islands within Manchester.
Also, years of infrastructure divestment in the neighborhood has made existing sidewalks, crosswalks and street lighting obsolete or severely damaged. Imagine being visually impaired or being restricted to a wheelchair or crutches and having to navigate Manchester today. It may not be impossible, but I can attest to it being very difficult.
We also need our city leaders to end the practice of special-use permits for some projects.
Why even tout and brag about the Richmond 300 Master Plan if all our City Council is going to do is approve SUP after SUP?
I’m sorry, but not every block needs to be a six- to 15-story apartment building with more than 300 units and just 15,000 square feet of ground-level retail.
Developers are taking advantage of the SUPs and rezoning requests, which gives them the flexibility to potentially add height to their project, or scale back commercial space for more residential units – all of which is occurring in Manchester with no benefit to the people who live in the neighborhood.
A Richmond 300 aerial rendering of priority corridors and envisioned greenspaces in the Manchester area of South Richmond. (BizSense file)
Manchester needed a full-service grocery store yesterday.
It’s the continued approval of SUPs and rezoning amendments that allow developers to alter original plans that may have called for more commercial space to accommodate a grocery store.
Instead, we get a multistory building with four stories of parking and six floors of apartments sitting over 10,000 square feet of retail – certainly not enough space for a full-service grocery store.
It’s time for Richmond to get creative. Let’s use some federal American Rescue Plan Act money, incentivize developers with rebates or purchasing property and lure some grocery stores to Manchester and South Richmond.
Let’s revisit transit-oriented developments. I find it odd that a developer can receive such a designation, throw up a building, and yet not be required to provide any upgrades for the bus stop with benches or shelters. Help make it make sense.
Richmond is thriving because the people, organizations and businesses who have called this city home for decades (during the good, bad and the ugly) decided to save their city and make it one of the most inviting destinations on the East Coast.
Unfortunately, City Hall likes to take credit for those efforts without putting in the work itself.
We need a pause button on all development in Manchester until city planners and economic leaders address several safety and quality-of-life issues in the neighborhood, and several others like it (What’s up, Scott’s Addition!).
Manchester has the potential to be an awesome asset for the city. However, that’s going to require Richmond to make some significant investments down here, to review our SUP process and for our City Council to show its dedication to protect residents and businesses.
Mid-day traffic on a recent week day along Hull Street. (BizSense file photos)
When I first moved to Manchester nearly seven years ago, the neighborhood seemed like a blank canvass.
I saw empty surface lots, a couple of old vacant warehouses and plenty of opportunity for growth and expansion.
Fast-forward to today. Manchester has apartments galore (and many more on the way), a Continental restaurant, Stella’s Grocery, Chipotle, ABC store, Hatch Food Hall and an outpost from Norfolk-based Benchtop Craft Brewing.
But with growth comes great responsibility to the people and businesses that have moved into the area, and, unfortunately, Richmond city leaders appear to have neglected their obligation to keep Manchester residents safe while approving wave after wave of new development projects for the neighborhood.
That’s why it’s time for the city to implement a moratorium on all development within Manchester – that is until planners can play catch-up to prioritize the protection of businesses and quality of life for residents.
I know, I know. I said the big bad “M”-word. But it’s truly necessary now more than ever, so, let me break this down.
Let’s start with the development.
One of the closed sidewalks in the neighborhood along Hull St.
Yes, new, shiny apartments and office buildings are good for the tax base versus an empty lot. Yes, to density and the smart reuse of vacant spaces to house people and businesses.
But why stop there?
Why not require developers to dedicate at least 20 percent of their project’s overall footprint to green space? Why not ask them to install green roofs or solar panels to help save on energy costs? Why not require stormwater enhancements and traffic-calming engineering to make it safer for residents wanting to frequent nearby breweries, restaurants and shops by foot?
These are asks the city chooses not to request or require of developers, thus allowing them to make up the rules as they go along to the frustration of the community seeking quality-of-life improvements to their neighborhood.
I mentioned green space earlier and there’s a reason for that – Manchester has very little of it left.
If there’s anything the pandemic showed us, it is the value and importance of green space and trees in an urban setting.
In 2020, Mayor Levar Stoney, during his bid for re-election, announced plans for several new parks to be developed on the Southside. Unfortunately, none of those parks will reach Manchester – probably because most of the viable property that could have been public park space has been claimed by developers and will soon birth more apartments. Furthermore, the lack of a proper parks master plan before Manchester’s building boom has made it difficult (and potentially more costly) to acquire property for public park space in the city’s fastest-growing neighborhood.
Then there’s the traffic and lack of pedestrian safety measures.
Pedestrians wait to cross Hull Street.
With the thousands of new apartments and the lack of mass transit options in South Richmond, traffic counts are growing, congestion is the norm and parking is at a premium since more people bring more vehicles. The result is a risky and terrifying experience for pedestrians wishing to cross Hull, Decatur, Maury or Commerce streets. In some cases, people are forced to walk on the street because developers are not required to keep sidewalks open during construction and have them blocked.
With increased traffic counts, the lack of longer street crossing times and protected signalized turn lanes for vehicle traffic further complicates matters – all but barricading residents to separate block islands within Manchester.
Also, years of infrastructure divestment in the neighborhood has made existing sidewalks, crosswalks and street lighting obsolete or severely damaged. Imagine being visually impaired or being restricted to a wheelchair or crutches and having to navigate Manchester today. It may not be impossible, but I can attest to it being very difficult.
We also need our city leaders to end the practice of special-use permits for some projects.
Why even tout and brag about the Richmond 300 Master Plan if all our City Council is going to do is approve SUP after SUP?
I’m sorry, but not every block needs to be a six- to 15-story apartment building with more than 300 units and just 15,000 square feet of ground-level retail.
Developers are taking advantage of the SUPs and rezoning requests, which gives them the flexibility to potentially add height to their project, or scale back commercial space for more residential units – all of which is occurring in Manchester with no benefit to the people who live in the neighborhood.
A Richmond 300 aerial rendering of priority corridors and envisioned greenspaces in the Manchester area of South Richmond. (BizSense file)
Manchester needed a full-service grocery store yesterday.
It’s the continued approval of SUPs and rezoning amendments that allow developers to alter original plans that may have called for more commercial space to accommodate a grocery store.
Instead, we get a multistory building with four stories of parking and six floors of apartments sitting over 10,000 square feet of retail – certainly not enough space for a full-service grocery store.
It’s time for Richmond to get creative. Let’s use some federal American Rescue Plan Act money, incentivize developers with rebates or purchasing property and lure some grocery stores to Manchester and South Richmond.
Let’s revisit transit-oriented developments. I find it odd that a developer can receive such a designation, throw up a building, and yet not be required to provide any upgrades for the bus stop with benches or shelters. Help make it make sense.
Richmond is thriving because the people, organizations and businesses who have called this city home for decades (during the good, bad and the ugly) decided to save their city and make it one of the most inviting destinations on the East Coast.
Unfortunately, City Hall likes to take credit for those efforts without putting in the work itself.
We need a pause button on all development in Manchester until city planners and economic leaders address several safety and quality-of-life issues in the neighborhood, and several others like it (What’s up, Scott’s Addition!).
Manchester has the potential to be an awesome asset for the city. However, that’s going to require Richmond to make some significant investments down here, to review our SUP process and for our City Council to show its dedication to protect residents and businesses.
APPLAUSE, APPLAUSE, APPLAUSE AND THANK YOU! As a Manchester resident, I agree with all you address! City Council – PLEASE LISTEN!
Green space is something RVA could easily take advantage of but they constantly neglect it. Imagine over looking the city view on W 4th st and Bainbridge st as a small example. There is literally no outside activities for the youth or areas to have a relaxed day or evening. Cities such as Austin TX & Denver CO are always in the top 5 best cities because of how they build livable spaces around beautiful parks in the city. A Willow Lawn type of an area is desperately needed along with some fuel stations here. Manchester has plenty of room… Read more »
What do Willow Lawn and fuel stations have to do with this Op-Ed? Manchester definitely needs green space and ground level retail, but gas stations and a strip mall aren’t needed.
Well Justin apparently you chose to arrogantly ignore what I wrote about green space. Your beliefs and opinions dont matter to me. We all want a better city I think that’s the only thing we can agree on.
Ramone, you mentioned adding low density infrastructure within Manchester as it becomes very dense, which is ridiculous and not feasible.
I’ll say again: beauty matters. Yes, the City could use some green space over there.
I only work in the city (live in Chesterfield), but agree wholeheartedly with your written piece. City Council must require these things from developers on the front end before any approvals. Left to their own devices, most developers do not just add greenspace, greenroofs, and sustainable energy addtions to their business based developments. They are businesses, and it is not thought of as profitable, but can be and should be required….. for the long term success of the community and in turn their developments. Proffers are required in counties to keep up with the infrastructure and educational needs that arise… Read more »
I applaud this article as a neighborhood business owner and physician. We need safe pedestrian, bicycle infrastructure and green space incorporated into the master plan and implemented by developers in partnership with the city. This should be an obligation to take part in the development of Machester and Blackwell. Also, we need to narrow and calm traffic on commerce to help connect lower and upper Manchester so the longstanding businesses on Hull Street can participate in the growth to the neighborhood. Bringing the north-south rapid transit line down Hull Street will help bring more food traffic to the neighborhood as… Read more »
Bruce’s idea of closing the Mayo Bridge to be for only buses and pedestrians/cyclists would help tremendously towards improving Hull St safety. Manchester and Scotts Addition are in similar situations in that they both need major infrastructure improvements. SA has gotten significantly more attention and it has the Pulse plus access to grocery stores. However it still has little to no trees/green space and no real sidewalk improvements.
I couldn’t agree more. As a Manchester resident, I love living here. I used to defend the city to my suburb friends but now I feel disappointed in how the city just seems to rubber stamp every project. I’ve tried to give feedback to them but I come away feeling like I wasn’t heard. The writer is correct about safety as well. I live at the corner of 7th and Semmes and it’s a pedestrian nightmare as well. Going forward the city should put more thought into the planning of these projects and their impacts on all us.
I agree with you. When I clicked on the arrow pointing up for ‘like’ a red minus showed up; this has happened to me a few times in the past. Curious as to why.
Its not an error, just a refresh after several others had also voted like/dislike. In this case, the ‘dislikes’ just surpassed your ‘like’ making it appear as if you accidently triggered a ‘dislike’.
If a proposed development is permitted by existing zoning, the property rights of the owner are vested, and permits may not be withheld at that point (as long as plans etc. are otherwise in order). What you’re asking for here would be unconstitutional. BTW there are also statutory limits on proffer requirements, so the idea of making others pay for the green spaces you want may not fly, either. If the city wants green spaces, it should buy the land.
Mr. Marrs, thanks for injecting a degree of legal reality into this discussion. While I applaud the suggestions of many here, Virginia law, and the limits it poses on localities ties the city’s hands when it comes to many of the well intended suggestions I’ve seen here. That said, the city could require some of the street and sidewalk improvements suggested as part of any applications for zoning alterations such as SUPs or rezoning. Henrico for example has added many a lane mile of street and sidewalk improvements at the developer’s expense in this manner.
Mr Marrs, would you change the law for requirements for green space, pedestrian/bicycle safety, etc if you could?
FYI…I believe there’s a giant park just a few blocks northwest of Manchester It’s like a river or something. Last time I checked its connected to all sort’s of trails that extend for miles along it. You should check it out, it’s pretty cool. Also you may want to review Mayo Island. It’s now owned by the city and a nature conservancy, I bet those folks like parks.
Green spaces near the apartments, condos, and businesses help cool urban spaces because bricks and concrete absorb heat, though I’m sure you realize that. Residents who work 5 days a week don’t have the time to walk to the river during the week to walk their pets before work. Sidewalks and pedestrian safety measures are sorely needed because the traffic is usually very heavy throughout the day and cars don’t always slow down. And yes, parking for folks, who don’t live in the area but are visiting friends or patronizing businesses, needs to be addressed. Question for staff, why is… Read more »
You may be thinking of street trees, which do more to cool those bricks/Concrete you speak of. Those are not parks or green spaces. Tree, sidewalks and handicap ramps should be included in any development of a particular scale.
Small green spaces like pocket parks are too far and few between here. There are some vacant lots and unintended green spaces but those will be gone. The river is great obviously but there is a need for more green space and trees, which many of the existing ones are blighted.
Agreed.
I’m thinking of small parks, not just tree lined streets.
Tree lined sidewalks work for about 20 years. Then the trees ruin the sidewalks. Do you walk in the Fan?
I would love to…if only I could safely navigate walking to the river trail system from my home, which has several blocked sidewalks because of construction, and being visually impaired, that’s a hard ask. Also, Manchester is not just the area near downtown. What about those who live closer to Richmond Highway? What about the elderly, or those who are visually impaired, or wheelchair-bound who may find it hard to get there? Accessibility is important in planning green space, and getting to Mayo Island and the river trails is hard for segments of our population…which is why additional green space… Read more »
Correct me if I am wrong then, but isn’t the majority of development that is pictured and described in the article (and you want to stop) near the river and not near those areas you describe like Richmond Highway?
Construction is messy, but temporary. People next to any construction site have to put up with nuisances from the construction. It is not unique to Manchester.
Yes. Wheelchairs, strollers, the elderly or anyone else with any kind of mobility issues do not get along well with the rugged trails by the river. I’m thankful I’m out of stroller life and that I have no issues accessing those very natural and rugged trails. But for the very young, anyone a little older or those with mobility challenges, something easy to access with places to sit and easily walkable paths is in order.
Richmond could take a page out of NYC’s book, which is allowing for higher density in exchange for publicly accessible common space in the form of patios, parklets, plazas. It’s not a perfect system, but would incentivize more “open” space.
Read the recent article in the NY Times about the miserable ‘open spaces’ accepted from developers in NYC.
This is a truly horrible idea. It makes almost everything described in the article worse.
Manchester is much much nicer than it was a decade ago. And it’s continuing to get nicer. The city should invest in parks etc there, not really dumb ideas
Precisely how should the city invest in parks here? Mr O Neal has a few ideas – your ideas while different could be equally valid and workable
buying undeveloped parking lots and turning them into green spaces. It’s actually a much bigger need in Scott’s Addition fwiw. Manchester has great access to the River and the new Mayo Island park
Take a look at all the green on google maps satellite view between commerce and cowardin.
I would agree with the city buying undeveloped lots. As other posters have noted we need more green space than just parks at the river. The entrance to the river is more than a 10-minute walk from my building and Mayo Island is 15 minutes away, both requiring crossing 4-lane roads with nominal speed limits of 35.
Also, with what money?
You are spot on!! Thank you for this article, which addresses the concerns that we, as residents of Manchester, have regarding infrastructure, safety, green space and the City’s stamps of approval on multiple SUPs. You have provided a clear and accurate description of how many in our community are feeling regarding the lack of oversight and long term planning from the City.
This is one of the silliest things I’ve ever read. Could RVA do development better? Yes. Should RVA have more green spaces? Yes.
But blocking development in one of RVA’s most backwards and underdeveloped areas is just . . . well, I’m just not going to go there.
This may be the best distillation I’ve ever seen of the meaning of an idea that friends and neighbors have been trying to explain to me for years: Density must work for people. I think many of us are fine with greater population density but it must come with a good quality of life. Green spaces, bike/ped safety, and a full grocery store (ending the food desert) are a few of the things that make density work for people. Mr O Neal’s points in the article are a beginning. One important role of government is to spread the benefits of… Read more »
Manchester is starting to look a lot like a mini Short North in Columbus. I think your concerns can be addressed without a moratorium. They definitely need to install speed humps around Benchtop and green space is certainly needed – though who knows where it’d go. It’d be nice for them to expand Charlie Sydnor Playground to the adjacent lots and build a big park. As for the grocery store, someone mentioned the old T-force building may be an option for one.
This reeks of entitlement. ‘Land owners aren’t using their land the way I want them to!’ The author clearly has no understanding of zoning, and an obvious lack of situational awareness. ‘Oh, no, there’s not enough green space in this dense urban area! There were supposed to be new parks!’ Are you seriously so foolish as to believe anything an elected official says? Dense development needs to STAY in the city. The REAL problem is the sprawl into the counties and the utter devastation of green space in Henrico and Chesterfield. I would expect nothing different from a “former Bizsense”… Read more »
Sue, I’m curious if you’ve done any research into the positive impacts urban green space has on the surrounding communities? If not, I highly recommend you take some time to read up on why urban green space should be as valued as functioning sidewalks, stop signs, and well lit streets.
Uh… Manchester is surrounded on two sides by a very green river, canal, and a soon to be park on Mayo Island. A large elementary school and park are toward the east in Blackwell…. All within a quarter mile of the center of Manchester. Coincidentally, A quarter mile is the same distance it takes to walk from your car to the walmart entry.
This problem with lack of shade, lack of amenities, having to cross the Indianapolis or Daytona race car tracks to get to any other part of the neighborhood, these are important to more than the high or highish income set. On its current trajectory Manchester seems likely to be a slum (or some other name for low income, low wealth, troubled area) in 30-40 years. I have myself thought seriously about moving out because it is much hotter and much louder (particularly the hot rods that gravitate toward the wide suburban-style roads Commerce and Cowardin) than any other place I’ve… Read more »
It’s amazing how you get downvoted when you speak from a reality POV.
I think a lot of the most frequent posters in the various articles here think about dollar signs, not livability, when they post
As a business owner on Hull Street, I completely agree that pedestrian safety is a huge issue. We have been begging for a stoplight for 5th and Hull with a proper crosswalk for starters. Supposedly in the works for 2024, but that is long time to wait for life safety improvements when you consider the volume of traffic and growing number of new residential developments. I don’t know that this could necessarily fall on the developers, but this sort of infrastructure improvement should have been completed already. Well protected bike lanes would also be welcomed along with some way to… Read more »
Repeat after me. You cannot force a commercial business to locate somewhere it does not want to. Yes, a grocery store has been in demand by residents in this area for quite some time, but you cannot force someone to locate there. As for green space, you have the James River Park system right next to the densest part of Manchester. You are not going to get green on every block of the city. As someone else pointed out, by right development does not require that. Not sure why they are knocking the SUP and zoning process because that is… Read more »
You can provide incentives to lure a commercial business to somewhere it would otherwise not choose to go to.
How would you incentivize a grocery chain (Publix or Whole Foods) to go into Manchester?
I just passed the new development being built at W. 7th and Bainbridge. Today, they are pouring new sidewalks as this discussion circulates…
I’ll admit that I didn’t read this whole thing, and I will nonetheless try to remain unbiased in my response. WHY is it “smartest” to call for a moratorium? Is this for dramatic effect or does the author think this extreme action be for the good and not have one or the other unintended consequences that make “the medicine worse than the disease” which often IS what happens when planners+politicians get their fingers too deep in the development mix. The city is so bad at getting their job done already without becoming famous far and wide about it. The author… Read more »
You didn’t read the entire piece, and yet your response is longer than the entire piece. C’mon, man.
I skipped around — but I immediately saw a tone and a sense of entitlement that I disagreed with.
Besides, man, I am not a man, but AI, remember? Get it straight.
It seems that it would be pretty simple to train AI to find a tone and sense of entitlement to disagree with, no? Sprinkle in some backstory and reference similar constructs? C’mon.
One thing I will say about the wisdom of making the developers put a bit more greenspace in: once the acreage is filled, it is pretty darn hard to undo it — and I don’t mean with surface parking — that area the land will be too valuable to waste on lots of surface parking, which could easily be converted to greenspace — you can’t easily just lob off part of an existing ten story bldg because someone wants a some more trees — you have to build that into the site plan.
I’ve been thinking about this a lot and decided I don’t really like Scott’s addition as there’s literally no green space to take a breath of fresh air. They could’ve planned for it and didn’t. While a moratorium isn’t necessary to achieve it, the city should pick a central lot to get some green space in for manchester – available land is running out.
Okay, lets squeeze some bike lanes along Hull St.now.
The canal along the flood wall has been a grassy place for a kestrel to hunt sparrows. But I think you could help to cool the area, clean the water in the canal, and improve the air quality by planting oaks and hickory and other native trees along the land in the canal. You could also place oaks in the sidewalk along Commerce to create a wind shield and cool Manchester. Other sidewalk have room for native trees as well. I agree that the city should purchase some plazas or squares like they have in Europe with interactive stone sculptures… Read more »
Can I get an AMEN!
Moratorium on building? That’s ridiculous. Some of the City’s biggest green areas are within walking distance of Old Manchester. Belle Island and coming soon Mayo Island. He’s right about the dangers of Hull Street though. I’ll say it for the umpteenth time. Close vehicular traffic at each side of the 14th Street Bridge and make both sides of the island safe for pedestrians. Allow only a center lane for mass transit. But stop an important building boom in downtown Richmond? Ridiculous! The City has been waiting for this growth to occur for decades. We need more people living downtown on… Read more »
The City of Richmond should let the overwhelming demand for housing burn itself out in that sooner or later they will run of the need for apartments. What Manchester is doing is it is creating room for people we there was none before. As a representative for the deer and other animals and trees we kind of view Manchester as acting like a people sink that is taking one for the team that is keeping thouands of humans from sprawing out needing to cut down trees and pave over everything by Manchester acting as a people sink. As much as… Read more »
this a hundred times. Building in cities is the most environmental thing we can do. Cutting down forests for subdivisions is something we should strive to avoid
Yes to all of this! My husband and I just sold our condo in Manchester to a good friend. When we lived there a decade ago, it needed a grocery store. The same applies today! We’re thrilled to see the development plan finally starting to take place, but living space is just one aspect. Kudos to you for writing this piece on behalf of so many who see the same thing!
The article being given an anti-development title I think is slightly misleading. What you are really talking about is the City of Richmonds’ lack of a use of tools under the category of ‘exactions’. These tools allow a local government to receive a variety of contributions of a few different kinds for development projects. The problem, however, lies not with Council or the Mayor but the City Attorney’s Office, who had not allowed to City to leverage this advantage. With a new City Attorney recently appointed however, I am hopeful this is something they will take on.