Imagine if Richmond had a riverside residential development that offered 5-star dining, a waterfront footpath and a public boat landing that served as an anchor for development along the James River.

What would be the economic impact of establishing an upscale boating piazza? If Richmond encouraged such a glamorous residential hot-spot, would you be lured into the city for entertainment? Would you want to move into the luxury downtown building?

What if that development provided an estimated $3 million in tax revenue and 360 jobs for area residents?

How would your opinion of such a promising destination change if you knew that this development would be installed amidst much protesting from Richmond’s historic preservation groups? Would you sacrifice a historic vista for which Richmond received its name for the development of an exclusive residential building?

These and other questions currently loom during the conceptual development stage of the proposed Echo Harbour development.

Thus Begins the Great Debate

Richmonders are in the midst of a fierce debate over the proposed Echo Harbour development. As many citizen activist groups gear up for a long-hauled protest, the development dream team stands firm on its belief that Echo Harbour will increase economic vitality for the city by bringing high-earning residents to a zip code plagued by crime and poverty.

That celebrated team includes some of Richmond’s most notable developers, including George Ross, Bob Tierney (of Baskervill & Sons), Mark Yates (of Northern-Virginia-based USP) and communications veteran Tom Morris (of Slay Public Relations).

The group has been making the rounds to Richmond-area Town Hall and civic association meetings, sharing their vision and promise of improved economic circumstance to the area. As one might expect from such a large-scale project, not even community groups are in unison over their support.

One night, the team hears that the Historic Richmond Foundation will not support the proposed development. The next night, Shockoe Bottom residents and business owners vote unanimously in support of the building. As public opinion grows strongly on both sides of the issue, the developers have been quick to assert that no design or structural plans for the buildings have been confirmed.

“We’re still in the conceptual stage,” says Yates. “At this point, we’re still working on zoning and on developing the concept for Echo Harbour.” Part of that development involves talking with residents to get public feedback on the project to ascertain how the public would like to see the property used. After considering a number of development options, the proposed residential building has continued to be the forerunner when it comes to creating a waterfront building.

In order to move forward with a residential building, the developers have requested a zoning change from the city, which would allow them to construct a pair of 206-foot tall residential buildings in the flood plane between Dock Street and the river. In order to build a 206-foot residential structure, the developers will need to obtain an allowance for the additional 56 feet above the maximum height of an RF-2 development.

The City has asked the developers’ for more details regarding how the building will be used. The City also requested a number of other adjustments to the original plans, including a plan for emergency access to the building in the event of a flood.

Ultimately, city council will choose whether or not the proposed development will receive the RF-2 zoning that it requires if the development is to move forward with its current building plans. Rachel Flynn, the City’s director of community development, has announced that she will not approve such a drastic zoning change, citing a multitude of concerns.

You be the Jury

Many Richmonders struggle to take sides between their appreciation of the historical impact of the Echo Harbour development and their desire for a strong riverfront future. Likewise, the public is forced to call into question issues regarding public/private ownership of such the magnificent waterfront property. To understand the challenge that both sides face, it is important to understand all of the facts. Here is critical information about Echo Harbour that you need to know:

Zoning Change and Public Access

In order for Echo Harbour to be built as a residential building, the zoning needs to be approved as RF-2, which means that a residential building up to 150 feet could be erected on the five-acre lot. The property is currently zoned as M-2, which means that the developers can build a commercial or manufacturing building on the property.

However, the land on which the developers wish to build the high-rise requires special attention. Because the property is in the heart of a flood plane, any future tenants on the first three stories of a commercial or manufacturing building would have to understand the risks associated with having their assets in the path of potential flood waters. Thus, in the conceptual drafts of the Echo Harbour development, those first three stories are slated to be a parking deck so that flooding does not become a problem for residents or tenants.

Like the developers, many people believe that the most appropriate development for the space is a residential building due to the environmental restrictions on the land and the value of such a strategic riverside location. “We’re trying to create a focal point for the river,” says Mark Yates. “Someone could go and build a factory of five office towers on the land now. That’s not what we think is best for the city.”

In addition to the proposed zoning change, the developers are requesting a special a special use permit and from the City “To authorize the waiver of certain feature requirements, including building height” so that they can build twin 206-foot towers, according to the developers’ application for a special use permit. The towers would be tiered into three heights and would be adorned with a green rooftop to help make them environmentally friendly and pleasing when looked upon from Churchill.

The towers would straddle community space, including a work-out facility and a 5-star restaurant. Because the recreational space would need to begin three stories above ground level, there would potentially be access to the first level by stairs and a footpath that would lead down to the river and connect with the Canal Walk. “Now there’s a fence around the property,” says Tom Morris. “You can’t even see the river. There’s no access. We can do a lot better.”

A lot better, according to Rick Tatnall, founder of Richmond Twinning, means making the land entirely open for public use instead of private development. Tatnall intends to fight for the land, even if it means urging the City to acquire the land by the law of emanate domain. “Our slant is not that this is a bad development,” says Tatnall. “It’s that it should be public land. The public should always have owned this land. It’s exquisite. It’s one of the best views of the city. It should be the region’s.”

Tatnall and his associates plan to launch a campaign over the next few weeks to protest the Echo Harbour development. “The people I’ve talked to are very passionate about not letting anything be done [with the land] and that it should be ours,” says Tatnall. “We would take public measures to force [the landowners] to sell the land if they do not build first.”

While Tatnall believes that the public should own the land, others believe that the public must rely upon private developers to make something of the land because the City has fallen short on its commitment to develop the area. Carl Otto is a Fulton Hill resident and an ardent supporter of the Echo Harbour development. “The City had the potential to build a park along the river there and they didn’t,” says Otto. “The land that the City owns is ignored and neglected. The City couldn’t come up with $300,000 to buy this land that Echo Harbour has when it was for sale. They won’t be able to come up with more for a park.”

To reinforce his belief that effectual development of the Echo Harbour land rests in private hands, Otto points to the City-owned boat landing and pier that are adjacent to the property. “One of the floods washed out the boat landing about 20 years ago and the City never came up with the money to replace it. They don’t have any money.”

Otto is a veteran of community development projects and helped to lead the effort to develop the nearby Gillies Creek park, for which he helped to raise about $100,000 in donations. “Everybody in the city should have river access and be able to enjoy this area,” says Otto, echoing Tatnall’s sentiments. “So far, access has been limited by industrial development with the railroads. Echo Harbour is a rare opportunity to provide that access to everyone.” The Echo Harbour development plans to provide that river access as well as public parking to facilitate public use.

Tatnall, however, believes that the proposed river access would be limited due to the nature of the development. “Access to the river would be public by word and not deed,” says Tatnall. “Echo Harbour is not an inviting place. The developers will do what they have to do to make officials happy, but it isn’t a place where I would be comfortable going. You won’t be able to walk up to the pier and go fishing.”

Likewise, the City is concerned with public access across the land and has notified the developers of their concerns. While the developers have assured the City and community members that an existing “exclusive easement” with the original owner of the land would be adjusted for public use, the City is looking for that guarantee in writing.

In a letter from the City to the developers, the City states that the developers would have to implement a non-exclusive easement “for an extension of the proposed Capital Trail,” which is a proposed bike trail that would connect downtown Richmond to Williamsburg via Route 5.

“There’s an exclusive easement that the former owner of the land maintained to 150 feet of the water,” says Rachel Flynn. “The public can’t go on that land; it’s his. The developers are saying they will provide public access and riverfront access but with the exclusive easement, they cannot coexist. The developers would have to change their deed.” That change is one that the developers claim would be easy and appropriate for them to make.

Historic Preservation

If you are like many Richmonders and have not yet made your decision about the positive and negative impact of Echo Habour, now throw in a historical quandary to the pot.

The City of Richmond received its name in the 1730’s after William Byrd II climbed to the top of Churchill and remarked about how similar Richmond, Virginia looked to Richmond upon Thames in England from his vantage point. In England, the “View” of the Thames can be found from atop Richmond Hill and is one of the most popular scenes in the country’s history.

In the 1890’s, the famous English View faced a similar challenge to the one that Richmond, Virginia now faces. When London was expanding, developers wished to establish estates upon the riverbank of the Thames, which would have impacted the country’s magnificent View. However, according to Tatnall in an open statement, “Indignation was galvanized into one of the earliest and most successful environmental campaigns in history, and in 1902 “The Richmond Petersham and Ham Open Spaces Act” was enacted.” That Act made it illegal to build any structure that would compromise the View.

In 2002, Tatnall was among the Richmond, Virginia representatives that traveled to London to celebrate the 100-year anniversary of the preservation of the Richmond upon Thames View. During the celebration, a plaque was erected to commemorate the fight that the public went through to keep the land from being developed. The last words on the plaque read, “Their example should inspire us to fight for what is worth saving for future generations.”

Tatnall believes that Richmond now has an opportunity to create a similar history by preserving Richmond’s View. “We’re going to have Britain and Prince Charles weigh in on this,” says Tatnall, who actively maintains a sister-city relationship with Richmond upon Thames. “Our intent is to preserve the View. It’s about the community saying that it’s too important not to be ours. International public interest will make the Echo Harbour developers succumb to our desire.”

Like Richmond upon Thames, Tatnall wants to create a legacy for Richmond that will last for generations. Instead of creating an upper-class residential building, Tatnall wants to “Turn the ship lock into a high-activity space on the river front that will generate money for the city,” says Tatnall. “We will do scientific studies to see what will work, but we’ll have the benefit of having that land in public hands. 100 years from now, our grandchildren will say that it’s great we [built a public space.]”

According to the developers, the historic view in question is not compromised by the Echo Harbour development. Furthermore, according to Morris, the LeHigh cement towers already create a visible industrial bi-product on the coveted View. In terms of long-term value to the City, the developers estimate that the development would return $3 million in net tax revenues and provide over 360 jobs for area workers. Those employment earnings would total $18 million. Additionally, the developers estimate that there would be an estimated growth of $52 million in New Business receipts within the City.

You Decide

While the financial projections of the Echo Harbour development are promising, Preservationists believe that creating a park in the area would increase recreational traffic to the area. Tatnall also believes that the international attention that he hopes his preservation efforts will command will bring in tourism dollars to the region.

Some residents, such as Otto, are disillusioned by the unused and under-developed public space that already exists along the waterfront. In order for the area to be developed in a manner that would create traffic and recreational opportunities for the area, Otto relies on the development efforts of private entities.

The proposed Echo Harbour development is not merely a question of past versus future or of public ownership versus private ownership. More so, the Echo Harbour development unveils the diversity of Richmond residents’ intrinsic values. Public debate over those values has historically made Richmond play a pivotal role in large-scale social and economic progress. Time will tell how this debate is concluded, but one can rest easy knowing that neither side will easily relent in its effort to impact the development of the region.

On That Note

For more information about the Richmond History Foundation and its role in preserving Richmond’s past, please visit www.historicrichmond.com/

For information about visiting or living Churchill, please visit www.churchhillrichmond.com/