Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Demolition And Replacement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission reviews conceptual replacement for unsafe building at 2228 Cedar Street; preservation groups and neighbors urge exploration of stabilizing options
Summary
The commission discussed conceptual plans for a new duplex to replace 2228 Cedar Street in Union Hill after the city’s building commissioner declared the existing Greek Revival building unsafe. Historic Richmond urged exploring stabilization alternatives before demolition; CAR asked the applicant for design adjustments if demolition proceeds.
Richmond — Commissioners reviewed a conceptual proposal for a new duplex to replace a distressed Greek Revival double house at 2228 Cedar Street after the city’s building commissioner declared the structure unsafe. The owner reported severe foundation and framing deterioration discovered during exploratory demolition and interior work, while neighbors and preservation advocates urged exploring alternatives to demolition.
Background and status
The property at 2228 Cedar Street was previously discussed by the commission to pursue rehabilitation and an addition. During interior demolition for preparation of construction drawings, the owner’s team discovered that the foundation mortar and some framing had deteriorated to a degree the building commissioner described as an unsafe structure. The building commissioner issued a violation and advised that demolition permits not proceed until CAR had reviewed conceptual replacement designs. The violation currently lists no firm demolition date, and the building commissioner has indicated he will not finalize demolition scheduling until CAR addresses a replacement design.
What the commission heard
- Applicant and contractor: Owner representative Chris Pollock described several site visits and structural reviews that showed crumbling brick foundation and joists at or near grade in parts of the structure; engineers and the building commissioner concluded rehabilitation options were limited. "We put so much focus on the 1840 front section… the foundation is essentially crumbling," Pollock told commissioners.
- Neighbors: Several neighbors and community members urged preservation and careful salvage. A nearby resident noted that many neighborhood foundations use oyster‑shell mortar and can be repaired, and Historic Richmond asked the owner to pause demolition and allow the preservation nonprofit to explore stabilization or salvage options.
- Historic Richmond: Danielle Porter, Historic Richmond’s preservation director, called the situation “an illustration of the limitations of our current system,” noting the lack of penalties and municipal tools to prevent demolition by neglect. She requested an opportunity to explore stabilization alternatives with the owner and the city and referenced Virginia law (Code of Virginia §15.2‑2306(f)) in the context of demolition penalties and review.
Commission reaction and design guidance
Members of the commission expressed regret about the condition of the building and sympathy for local residents. Commissioners emphasized that, if demolition proceeds, CAR will typically expect a replacement to reflect the historic massing, form and proportions of the original primary elevation. Staff recommended that if demolition moves forward the replacement should:
- Retain a prominent gabled primary mass and raised (English) basement datum so the front mass reads as a distinct historic block; - Use a standing‑seam roof on the primary mass rather than asphalt shingles; - Configure rear massing so that the gable front remains distinct (suggested options included lowering or stepping back the rear shed mass or otherwise ensuring a clear subordinate attachment); - Salvage and reincorporate historic materials (granite, brick, columns/posts) where feasible and document the salvage plan with staff prior to demolition or salvage removal.
No formal vote; next steps
This was a conceptual review only; CAR did not vote to approve demolition. Commissioners asked the applicant to continue exploring stabilization options with Historic Richmond and to provide more detailed design refinements that emphasize a clear foreground historic volume with subordinate rear massing if demolition is unavoidable. The building commissioner’s finding remains in effect; CAR noted that any future COA for demolition or for new construction will require detailed documentation.
— Sources: CAR meeting transcript, staff presentation, public comment from Historic Richmond.
