Belvedere roundup

In the “not all publicity is good publicity department”:

Rarely have the words “shameful, ” “greedy,” “sad” and “health hazard” been used to describe a project positively, and this is another such case.

Is clear-cutting and burning “green”?

Good discussion at Cvillenews

The Daily Progress today notes the burning

But … Stonehaus is going to be donating land for a new soccer facility. Stonehaus, and Chris Schooley in particular, deserve kudos for stepping to the plate. Other developers should take heed.

Stonehaus donated the land to SOCA for its project because “we appreciated this European model where soccer would be … the center of a community. We’re really trying to create that kind of community.”

I have been open with my excitement about Belvedere. These reports temper the excitement I, and surely my clients and buyers, feel, and perpetuate the “business as usual” opinion of developers. Belvedere’s developers have done quite a bit of work reaching out to the community. What will they do now to reach out to the community to alleviate their concerns?

Technorati Tags: , , , , ,

(Visited 27 times, 1 visits today)


  1. Maiaoming October 12, 2007 at 13:58

    Speaking on a very superficial level, I prefer at least the advertising side of Belvedere to what I learned about the co-housing plan for Crozet when I attended one of their information sessions.

    Why? Because, while both say they will be green, have community features, etc., the co-housing people weren’t sure what to do with pets and force community, while the Belvedere place plans a dog park and is actually cheaper for what you get.

    It isn’t easy being green – but funny how I would prefer the corporate one over the noncorporate one!

  2. Pingback: Green building in Charlottesville is about to (hopefully) take a major step forward - Contact Jim Duncan - Buyer's Agent representing clients purchasing in Belvedere | Real Central VA