A rendering of the proposed building at the corner of Patterson and Libbie avenues. (BizSense file images)
The future of two different projects along Patterson Avenue went in two different directions at last night’s Richmond City Council meeting.
Council delayed a decision on the proposed redevelopment of the Westhampton Pastry Shop-anchored building at 5728 Patterson Ave.
The proposal would see the existing, 1940s-era building replaced with a four-story commercial building, with restaurant and retail space on the ground floor below three floors of office space.
The team behind the proposed development has said that the current building has reached an age where it needs to be replaced, and that the long-standing Westhampton Pastry Shop would be retained as a tenant in the new building.
The proposal has faced some neighborhood pushback as some have complained about potential parking and traffic concerns. Some of those locals spoke against the development at last week’s Planning Commission meeting, where the commission voted to recommend approving the project.
City Council chose to delay a vote on the matter until its Feb. 24 meeting.
Superstars Pizza’s owner is planning to take over a vacant former laundromat at Patterson and Roseneath.
Council did vote in favor of a proposed deli in the Museum District from one of Westhampton Pastry Shop’s neighbors.
SuperStars Pizza owner Taylor Antonelli received council approval for a planned deli a few miles east at 3401 Patterson Ave. Antonelli is now cleared to convert the vacant, former laundromat into a delicatessen and hub for his mobile catering operation, FiftyOne Mobile Kitchen.
The proposal required amending a previously approved special-use permit on the site. A coffee chain, PJ’s Coffee of New Orleans had been looking to open its first local location at 3401 Patterson Ave. but those plans fell through.
Also on council’s agenda was a real estate disposition plan for the city to sell around 55 acres of surplus land, most of which is in the city’s East End. That item was also continued to council’s Feb. 24 meeting.
A rendering of the proposed building at the corner of Patterson and Libbie avenues. (BizSense file images)
The future of two different projects along Patterson Avenue went in two different directions at last night’s Richmond City Council meeting.
Council delayed a decision on the proposed redevelopment of the Westhampton Pastry Shop-anchored building at 5728 Patterson Ave.
The proposal would see the existing, 1940s-era building replaced with a four-story commercial building, with restaurant and retail space on the ground floor below three floors of office space.
The team behind the proposed development has said that the current building has reached an age where it needs to be replaced, and that the long-standing Westhampton Pastry Shop would be retained as a tenant in the new building.
The proposal has faced some neighborhood pushback as some have complained about potential parking and traffic concerns. Some of those locals spoke against the development at last week’s Planning Commission meeting, where the commission voted to recommend approving the project.
City Council chose to delay a vote on the matter until its Feb. 24 meeting.
Superstars Pizza’s owner is planning to take over a vacant former laundromat at Patterson and Roseneath.
Council did vote in favor of a proposed deli in the Museum District from one of Westhampton Pastry Shop’s neighbors.
SuperStars Pizza owner Taylor Antonelli received council approval for a planned deli a few miles east at 3401 Patterson Ave. Antonelli is now cleared to convert the vacant, former laundromat into a delicatessen and hub for his mobile catering operation, FiftyOne Mobile Kitchen.
The proposal required amending a previously approved special-use permit on the site. A coffee chain, PJ’s Coffee of New Orleans had been looking to open its first local location at 3401 Patterson Ave. but those plans fell through.
Also on council’s agenda was a real estate disposition plan for the city to sell around 55 acres of surplus land, most of which is in the city’s East End. That item was also continued to council’s Feb. 24 meeting.
This story is for our paid subscribers only. Please become one of the thousands of BizSense Pro readers today!
Your subscription has expired. Renew now by choosing a subscription below!
For more informaiton, head over to your profile.
SUBSCRIBE NOW
TERMS OF SERVICE:
ALL MEMBERSHIPS RENEW AUTOMATICALLY. YOU WILL BE CHARGED FOR A 1 YEAR MEMBERSHIP RENEWAL AT THE RATE IN EFFECT AT THAT TIME UNLESS YOU CANCEL YOUR MEMBERSHIP BY LOGGING IN OR BY CONTACTING SUPPORT@BUSINESSDEN.COM.
ALL CHARGES FOR MONTHLY OR ANNUAL MEMBERSHIPS ARE NONREFUNDABLE.
EACH MEMBERSHIP WILL ONLY FUNCTION ON UP TO 3 MACHINES. ACCOUNTS ABUSING THAT LIMIT WILL BE DISCONTINUED.
FOR ASSISTANCE WITH YOUR MEMBERSHIP PLEASE EMAIL SUPPORT@BUSINESSDEN.COM
Already a Member? Sign in
Return to Homepage
I hope the Westhampton project moves forward without being watered down. This stretch of Patterson is planned as an important transit corridor and should be developed accordingly. The entire section from Willow Lawn Drive to Maple Avenue needs to follow the example set by the Westhampton school redevelopment, creating a true village center at the city’s western edge.
Concerns about traffic and parking are the same tired arguments used to resist progress and more sustainable growth. Rather than letting them dictate development, the focus should be on educating people about the benefits of density and walkability.
Well said. The council needs to reject cowardice and embrace change.
Love your rigid definitions — sounds kinda like from “mid-century.” Moscow?? Berlin??? Wave of the Future???
I don’t disagree with what you are saying, but I do disagree with the reasoning the developers use for tearing down the building. Saying that the “1940s building has reached an age that it needs to be torn down” is gaslighting. The whole area is 1930s-1950s buildings and homes which gives it the charm it has, and there have been far too many tear downs already. It would have been far better for the developers to incorporate the old building into their plans rather than just tearing it down. The proposed new building does not at all capture the era.
Thank you for articulating what I’ve been feeling about the plan. This design is the same sort of drivel that sprouted up in place of the iconic Westhampton Theater. What’s the point of appreciating the Libbie Corridor if the iconic façades are just going to get torn down and replaced with copy/paste CAD files from the monolithic boxes going up in Scott’s Addition?
A few things… I too miss the Westhampton Theatre, but repurposing that building was never going to make any kind of economic sense, and I think what they ended up doing there actually looks pretty good.
Likewise the building being proposed here on Patterson looks pretty good compared to what is being built in Manchester and Scott’s Addition. I can’t see the back, but I don’t see any Hardiplank siding on any of the sides.
And the building being replaced here is far from iconic. Architecturally this new building is a vast improvement.
Yes, these things are nuanced — and I wish people took things more in a case-by-case way — there ARE things that are “old” and not worth saving, esp when something better can be put there, there are things that are just not easy to repurpose and sentimentality should not always be triumphant — certainly Richmond suffers from a bit too much of this kind of “conservativism” but there are people who seem to want to build their own versions of Futurama — like they are Louis the XIV or a certain famous European political leader in the 1930s or… Read more »
Oh, you don’t want to get call a “coward” by Don O’Keefe up there, do you? Be Brave and Get with the Program!! (Or Else???)
The Westhampton school redevelopment doesn’t seem to give me the “village” feel .
The “Westhampton school redevelopment” is an EDA lesson in what not to do. Or do you not recall that land is under a 60 year lease, which was tied to the Redskins training camp? Then, after deal approval, Bon Secours sought rezoning. And they threatened to demolish the historic school building completely. We reached a bad compromise that preserved some of the school only after massive public outcry and pressure on the planning commission and city council. If I were Mayor, I’d put a moratorium on all Special Use Permits until rezoning is complete and put more effort behind doing… Read more »
For what it’s worth, the EDA deal (which I agree was a bad one) never included a provision that Bon Secours save either building. It only stipulated that Bon Secours had to spend over a specific amount of money and generate a over a specific number of jobs. The plan when they signed the deal was to tear both school buildings down and construct a modern medical office building. After pushback from a vocal minority about demolishing the schools and receiving bad advice on how historic tax credits work, Bon Secours voluntarily said they would save and renovate both buildings… Read more »
Again, a bad EDA deal and an example of our need to contract for all of the specifics. The assumption was that the building would be renovated and reused for the nursing school. As frequently happens here (Stone Brewing, etc.), the developer said it would be too costly after the deal was signed. Due diligence is on them. They attempted to change plans by seeking rezoning and demolition. Now we have a half-ass redevelopment, didn’t get those jobs, irrevocably changed a historic building, and have a nice little artistic memorial about integration on the sidewalk that I’m sure passersby don’t… Read more »
We’re arguing semantics here, but the original deal made in 2012 assumed Bon Secours would tear down both buildings and build a new MOB – followed by more MOBs or hospital space.. The deal specified that it had to be at least a certain size, costs at least a certain amount of money, and generate a minimum # of jobs. It wasn’t until about a year after the deal was made and nimbys complained, that the Bon Secours CEO announced he would relocate the nursing school there and save the buildings. He looked like a hero, but the numbers never… Read more »
Yes, let’s continue to turn Richmond into Anywhere, USA.
Let the downvoting begin.
There seems to be strong sentiment among a portion of the population that their current vision for this project, the Mayo Bridge rebuild, and most other projects (residential and commercial) in the city are going to have enduring appeal for the next century and beyond. What will happen if, in 25 years, hi-density and mixed use projects fall out of favor? What happens if bike travel becomes pase? Why does Richmond have to become a carbon copy of anywhere? Why can’t innovation utilize some different formats occasionally?
It’s true. Density has been going on for a LONG time — cities got increasingly more dense and if you go to NYC and Chicago there are areas that are surprisingly dense that were built a long, long time ago —- now, NYC, esp in midtown is getting even MORE dense — buildings like the Chrylser bldg and getting dwarfed by taller, though less iconic and blander mega towers —- I am not saying that cities are not getting more dense, and I am not saying I oppose more density because I think Richmond should encourage more residential towers downtown… Read more »
I pray that the return to office mandate for federal workers comes to fruition forcing the NOVA people with their garish and gaudy tastes and their extravagant cost of living to go home.
You seem to have a pretty…. uh, ….. uniformed view of “NoVA-people” —- in exactly WHAT way do you see them as less, …uh,….sophisticated??? than Richmond area people?? I mean, if you look carefully, many Richmonders and NoVA people are the SAME people, there is a lot of back and forth and has been for a long time — indeed, many people from Richmond who have been successful enough to have worked in NoVA are moving back to Richmond in ever increasing numbers because Richmond isn’t seen as a “dump” any more. The people who are moving down here don’t… Read more »
if preserving garbage buildings is Richmond, yes we should turn Richmond into somewhere else.
But I personally think we are better than old run down strip malls, and that’s not what gives us character.
Thank you Charles. While this is a bit extreme, I also don’t see why we have to sentimentalize every brick and dormered old immitation of an imitation of an imitation building — I mean, even most of Jefferson’s designs were cheaper imitations of better buildings in France or England — he gets a lot of credit for his own house, which he was playful with — but the guy was just a dillitante….
Not going to down vote you but I DO think Richmonders sentimentalize boring “brick and clapboard” a bit too much and think Richmond looks somehow unique which is DOESN’T — boring William and Mary looks a lot like Boring Dartmouth and England always has better examples of this sort of thing than the USA did. I DO think the best things should be preserved and even if a new thing is going to be more awesome, it should be put somewhere else because frankly there is a LOT of things that are both “old” and Ugly in Richmond and many… Read more »
I think this building looks nice. Massing and relative sizes of the elements are good — does look a little boring, but so does most things here already except in certain neighborhoods so….