Subscribe!| Newer Post | home | Older Post |
 |
 |
The Future of North Valley Pike (Route 11 North) |
|
 There is a slowly growing area just north of Harrisonburg that you may not have heard of or visited, but there are a variety of factors that may make it a growth area over the next several to many years.  A strategic plan has been created for this North Valley Pike corridor, that suggests turning an existing section of Route 11 into a main street area, with most through traffic diverted to a new road. For an overview with lots of helpful links, read the post on hburgnews.  A research and technology park has been established amidst this corridor on 365 acres, owned and operated by Rockingham County.  SRI International has established a 25-acre campus in the above-referenced research and technology park, and opened the Center for Advanced Drug Research, which is a "state-of-the-art research facility for conducting systems biology research in the areas of biodefense and neglected diseases."  An attractive subdivision of single family homes is being developed in this corridor area (I am marketing this subdivision) with prices starting in the low $200,000's.  A new elementary school was recently built on Smithland Road, not too far from this North Valley Pike corridor. This has created new traffic flow patterns, bringing greater awareness to the north side of Harrisonburg. While most development has taken place just southeast of Harrisonburg in the recent past, the area just north of Harrisonburg will be a key area to watch over the next 3 to 20 years. | |
 |
 |
| Newer Post | home | Older Post |
Scott Rogers
Coldwell Banker
Funkhouser Realtors
540-578-0102
scott@cbfunkhouser.com
Licensed in the
Commonwealth of Virginia
Harrisonburg New Homes
Heritage Estates
The Glen at Cross Keys
Meadowbrook
Cottages @ Stone Spring
The Townes at Bluestone
Liberty Square
Urban Exchange
Founders Way
Harrisonburg Foreclosures
H'burg Real Estate Radio
According to the drafted plan, Meadowbrook subdivision appears to be using a discouraged road pattern that could lead to connectivity issues.
July 15, 2010 8:43 pm
Alexander ---
I think you're referencing the goal of having subdivision roads connected to other surrounding roads to avoid cul-de-sacs for ease of passage for emergency vehicles, etc. I think that's a great direction for new developments, though I suspect that that may not exist at Meadowbrook because there is not any immediately surrounding developments or roads with which the neighborhood roads could connect. It is interesting, however, that this new push for growth along this northern corridor might more quickly create other areas with which the subdivision roads could interconnect.
I'm very interested to see how quickly things develop on this side of the city!
July 16, 2010 9:38 pm
Yes, that's what I am referring to and you're right, there is nothing else developing just around Meadowbrook now. Isn't this likely to be the case for subdivisions that will develop in the area anytime soon. Though I'm not even sure that this matters, If there is a particular vision that the citizenry have for this area then shouldn't it be upheld? This means sacrificing a lot or two that you wanted to sell, spending a little more on roads, that will lead to nowhere for now, but at least you can predetermine how other subdivisions will interconnect with your own. To quote: "it is critically important to address improved connectivity at the earliest phases of site design." Anyway, the road pattern seems to flaunt the goal of this project which is to very thoughtfully develop a community that flows through itself, not to place $300,000 homes at the end of cul-de-sacs, where if you don't live on that street (and who the hell could afford to) then you're not welcome. Such exclusive sub-communities is likely not what the citizens want to see as the result of development in the northern corridor. To, again, etch hierarchy so clearly into the landscape of our community is failure.
July 17, 2010 12:57 pm
i should've said one and not you.. it's funny tho, a strategic plan draws attention to a vision which will likely be contraceived in the shortest-term possible by the totality of private interests involved. thus the plan with no teeth actually undermines the vision.
July 18, 2010 11:13 am
Of note....homes at Meadowbrook now start at $227,430 --- so even if you can't afford to live in a $350k house, you can still live at Meadowbrook and drive on the streets with cul-de-sacs.
That said, I do think the concepts of interconnectivity (not a word, according to my browser's spell check) make a lot of sense. Thankfully the vast majority of the northern corridor is still undeveloped, so these goals can hopefully be achieved.
But, yes, as you point out in your most recent comment, the lack of ability to force the goals to be achieved could circumvent them. If 5 developers propose residential subdivisions over the next 5 years, each of which are totally enclosed, then we haven't achieved much.
Perhaps the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors will be quite insistent on such components when they are presented with a proposed site plan!
July 18, 2010 3:24 pm
Thanks for the good reply Scott, and setting straight the exaggerations. So, it comes down to the planners and supervisors... This ties in with your article on a potential R3 moratorium, which as you said might (should?) come down to the rights of the property owner. Ultimately, it's the property owner's goal and right to make the most (financially) out of the use or resale of their property. So, I would disagree with a moratorium on the further construction of student housing, despite the apparent over-saturation. This is not only based on the owner's rights argument, but also some sort of free market (pinch me) argument. Errm... if some developer wants to take the chance of building more student housing, so be it, they may fail or they may succeed in drawing clients away from current housing (fitzgerald mentions this in utube post). Anyway, if an apartment complex can't maintain financially because the market simply cant support it then let it fail, and let each successive owner fail until the complex is torn down or re-purposed.
If I read a prior article of yours correctly, the planning and zoning commissions some time ago (three years?) basically threatened an increased scrutinizing of development at greater than R2 properties in the future (which is now?). I guess this isn't necessarily re-zoning (which is de-zoning, we're talking about reducing the likely profitability of a property) based on analysis of market conditions, but it would nonetheless appear to be manipulation of the market (still followed by control based on self-created over-saturation?).
It further seems as though a finger were on the scales because not only was a particular type of development spurred, but regulation surrounding it IMHO was lax. The real issue here FOR ME, as a lifelong resident, isn't that there is (supposedly) too much student housing... It's that Harrisonburg's student housing is now, for the plus part, hideous, lacking cohesion, unconcerned with common or natural spaces, reasonable set-backs, or the preservation of spectacular views and proper use of unique vantage points. The current student housing makes the city appear haphazard in the least , a single motif should have been loosely followed... probably some sort of "historic" look since everyone in the valley (and on earth) sees the continued benefits of marketing oneself as such... but this circles back into the rights of the property owner and the government's/citizen's obligation to (forcibly?) maintain a community that is pleasurably lived in by all.
Let them build new student-housing, in fact give them tax incentives to do so, BUT put extremely stringent ordinances on their appearance/layout so that we have necessary student/low-income housing whose looks and spacial sensibility we can be proud of. I'm not talking about ultra-ultilitarian housing where residents share one bathroom and kitchen (though this would be the most prudent), just a bit of regulation so that my children and such can also live in a beautiful place.. there is (was) money to be made enough in development without disrespecting the allure of the heart of the valley.
to ramble just a bit more :) it should be noted that Harrisonburg might become the place to go for cheap cheap housing before it becomes the place where a bunch of developers totally failed (but stayed afloat by cutthroat rental pricing) in the studnet housing market. in his utube video fitzgerald mentions the potential problems the city might face due to a situation like this, id be interested to know what specific problems he foresees. dont have a utube acct to reply there and this isnt a politics site (hah?) so sharing to private email would be fine.
July 20, 2010 7:00 pm
"Anyway, if an apartment complex can't maintain financially because the market simply cant support it then let it fail, and let each successive owner fail until the complex is torn down or re-purposed."
I tend to agree with this philosophy, as I don't think government should play too much of a role in the market. That said, an interesting current phenomenon is the federal government bailing out lots of banks and companies who were going to fail per the free market.
"Harrisonburg's student housing is now, for the plus part, hideous, lacking cohesion, unconcerned with common or natural spaces, reasonable set-backs, or the preservation of spectacular views and proper use of unique vantage points. "
Very (very!) interesting observation. Sounds like you would much prefer some creative, intentionally planned student housing communities, instead of just the fastest and cheapest way of building housing.
"in his utube video fitzgerald mentions the potential problems the city might face due to a situation like this, id be interested to know what specific problems he foresees."
Joe would enjoy hearing from you. Contact him by clicking here.
July 21, 2010 12:05 am
Add A Comment: