166 replies to this topic

[vicupstate]

According to a reliable source, Walmart is going back to the drawing board on the proposed store for Church & University Ridge.  I got the impression it will be a smaller store and a more urban design. No timetable for when revised plans will make an appearance.

[GvilleSC]

vicupstate, on 29 November 2011 - 07:51 PM, said:

According to a reliable source, Walmart is going back to the drawing board on the proposed store for Church & University Ridge.  I got the impression it will be a smaller store and a more urban design. No timetable for when revised plans will make an appearance.

That's good to hear.

As the very first new development since the corridor's transformation, a very strong precedent needs to be set. VERY strong. Hopefully (if not involved in this project) dense residential developments will follow.

[jwtiger04]

vicupstate, on 29 November 2011 - 07:51 PM, said:

According to a reliable source, Walmart is going back to the drawing board on the proposed store for Church & University Ridge.  I got the impression it will be a smaller store and a more urban design. No timetable for when revised plans will make an appearance.

I know the Alta Vista Neighborhood Association meeting was last night and an official from the city was supposed to be there to give updates on this project, as well as the Stables project. I will see what I can find out.

Smaller and more urban sounds good to me. Wish the city would just get Hughes or someone to come in and build a mix used corner there with a smaller 30k sq ft wal-mart on the first floor and have the city foot the bill for the parking garage. The master plan calls for the city picking this up I believe and they did so at River Place also (though obviously River Place was a different ballgame). I still feel that if that corner isn't built up like it could be, it will be a disappointment. Everyone says Grenville needs more apartments for rent....

[mallguy]

I went to the Pelham Road Walmart for the first time over the weekend.  I never even knew that there was a Walmart there, and it was aesthetically very attractive, with modern-looking stone and the like on the entrance.  If Walmart can have a store that good looking, I am looking forward to something nice at Church St. & University Ridge.

I am still finding it super-hypocritical for local government to be telling Walmart how to build its store...when the county occupies a former Walmart subsidiary location in ugly County Square, just across the street.

[vicupstate]

mallguy, on 30 November 2011 - 06:32 PM, said:

I went to the Pelham Road Walmart for the first time over the weekend.  I never even knew that there was a Walmart there, and it was aesthetically very attractive, with modern-looking stone and the like on the entrance.  If Walmart can have a store that good looking, I am looking forward to something nice at Church St. & University Ridge.

I am still finding it super-hypocritical for local government to be telling Walmart how to build its store...when the county occupies a former Walmart subsidiary location in ugly County Square, just across the street.

Not seeing the connection on this.
1) The COUNTY and the CITY are separate entities.  The County has no say.
2)  County Square was a REDEVELOPMENT of a empty big box.  This is NEW construction.  Big difference.  Would you prefer the big box remained empty?
3) County Square was redevelopment years (decades?) ago, long before the Haynie-Sirrine plan was in place specifically or new urbanism in general.

[GvilleSC]

vicupstate, on 30 November 2011 - 06:57 PM, said:

Not seeing the connection on this.
1) The COUNTY and the CITY are separate entities.  The County has no say.
2)  County Square was a REDEVELOPMENT of a empty big box.  This is NEW construction.  Big difference.  Would you prefer the big box remained empty?
3) County Square was redevelopment years (decades?) ago, long before the Haynie-Sirrine plan was in place specifically or new urbanism in general.

Plus, if I'm not mistaken, the site is zoned MIXED USE as it stands today.

[mallguy]

vicupstate, on 30 November 2011 - 06:57 PM, said:

Not seeing the connection on this.
1) The COUNTY and the CITY are separate entities.  The County has no say.
2)  County Square was a REDEVELOPMENT of a empty big box.  This is NEW construction.  Big difference.  Would you prefer the big box remained empty?
3) County Square was redevelopment years (decades?) ago, long before the Haynie-Sirrine plan was in place specifically or new urbanism in general.

County Square redevelopment?  Minimal redevelopment work was done on it- the outside was repainted, a few windows were added, the interior was chopped up into office space and not much else.  The complex is an eyesore and hasn't changed much, at least on the exterior, from its mall days.  I remember when government bought it, and both the city and the county were both heavily involved in the transfer of the property from Bell Tower Mall owners to the county.  Further, County Square is in the city limits, and so the city certainly has say over it.

There were discussions just a few years ago about doing a total redevelopment of County Square.  So much for that.

I would prefer that County Square be demolished, frankly, and a brand-new development done on the site.

[vicupstate]

mallguy, on 01 December 2011 - 09:10 PM, said:

County Square redevelopment?  Minimal redevelopment work was done on it- the outside was repainted, a few windows were added, the interior was chopped up into office space and not much else.  The complex is an eyesore and hasn't changed much, at least on the exterior, from its mall days.  I remember when government bought it, and both the city and the county were both heavily involved in the transfer of the property from Bell Tower Mall owners to the county.  Further, County Square is in the city limits, and so the city certainly has say over it.

There were discussions just a few years ago about doing a total redevelopment of County Square.  So much for that.

I would prefer that County Square be demolished, frankly, and a brand-new development done on the site.

Converting a vacant retail center into a fuly occupied office building is a redevelopment in my book, regardless of how much the appearance changed.

The city had no say over the design because it was redeveloped prior to the design review board being established or the Haynie-Sirrine plan being developed.  The only say the city would have had would be over any zoning change that might have been needed.

The COUNTY  owns the COunty Square property and the COUNTY has NO say in the Walmart issue. That was my point in my original post.  I don't see hypocrisy when the county doesn't have any bearing on what does or does not happen to the Walmart site.  They are not an particpating party.

The proposed redevelopment probably fell through because of opposition to moving county offices to Woodruff Rd, the complexity of the deal.

A redevelopment will happen one day, and it will no doubt mean the current buildings will be demolished. But there is still land in better locations still available in the vicinity, and the economy is not great either.   If a positive, mixed use project goes up on the Walmart site, then that increases the likelyhood of County Square being redeveloped sooner rather than later.

[vicupstate]

This article regarding Columbia Walmarts is interesting background on this issue.  I wonder if Walmart plans for multiple stores in Greenville proper.  

http://www.thestate....rt-of-city.html

[RiverWalker]

vicupstate, on 02 December 2011 - 07:39 AM, said:

This article regarding Columbia Walmarts is interesting background on this issue.  I wonder if Walmart plans for multiple stores in Greenville proper.  

http://www.thestate....rt-of-city.html

The sentence of greatest interest is the one that reads, "The mammoth discount retailer has altered its business strategy and has been moving away from larger superstores in suburban areas and toward smaller operations in urban areas." I can think of several sites with potential for such development, but that topic would be better suited for a separate discussion. I suggest that vicupstate's message and this one be carved off to start a new thread (if vicupstate is willing), as I'd like to see some other thoughts on this subject.

[vicupstate]

Ok by me, if the moderator approves.  We can keep the Church-University specific posts here, and start a more general thread as Riverwalker suggests.

[jwtiger04]

Regarding Church St. road work.... sidewalks done heading north, sidewalks 90% done heading South (just need to be finished at the corner of Church and University in front of the auto maintenance place there on the corner), had cones in the middle of the road last night and repainted lines on the north side to move traffic towards the sidewalk (my guess is to begin the median and they will probably do the same on the other side of the road today), the new stop light arms have gone up at Pearl/Haynie and Church and look very good. They have reduced the number of utility poles and put in new ones (though not as good as burial would have been, better than nothing). There is still a few shorter ones up that only have one cable running on them, including in the middle of a turning lane and in the sidewalk, which I think will come out when they put in the stop lights... not sure though. Also, Pearl Ave. no longer connects to Church St. heading South and they have reduced number of entrances to the Marathon gas station from 2 to 1 heading south on Church. The updated paint and repaving of the Marathon have made the gas station look MUCH better than it did as a BP.

Landscaping and the repaving is going to really change the appearance of the road.

[GvilleSC]

Great to hear of the progress. I haven't been down Church in a while. The reduction of curb cuts is great!

[jwtiger04]

GvilleSC, on 02 December 2011 - 09:22 AM, said:

Great to hear of the progress. I haven't been down Church in a while. The reduction of curb cuts is great!

Agreed. The median will dramatically cut down on the center turning lanes. If I remember correctly there will only be turns available at Pearl/Haynie, University Ridge, and Augusta (could be one more between Pearl/Haynie and Augusta but none between Peral/Haynie and University).

[mallguy]

vicupstate, on 02 December 2011 - 07:35 AM, said:

I don't see hypocrisy when the county doesn't have any bearing on what does or does not happen to the Walmart site.  They are not an particpating party.

We'll need to agree to disagree- I do see hypocrisy when the city allowed and continues to allow County Square (and, before that, the destruction of the Furman campus on the site, replaced by big-box discount stores and a cheaply built mall) yet is not allowing Walmart.  The city was heavily involved in the change of ownership of the Bell Tower Mall site in the '80s.

More recently, the city allowed McAlister Square, which is also unattractive and not urban at all, to be transformed into a college-in-a-mall along a corridor in dire need of improvement, yet did nothing to make the area more aesthetically appealing and urban, other than a few plans that never came to fruition.

At least I'd hope that people can agree that Columbia's downtown needs a Walmart even more, since retail there is so limited.

Edited by mallguy, 02 December 2011 - 06:59 PM.

[Greenville]

mallguy, on 02 December 2011 - 06:58 PM, said:

We'll need to agree to disagree- I do see hypocrisy when the city allowed and continues to allow County Square (and, before that, the destruction of the Furman campus on the site, replaced by big-box discount stores and a cheaply built mall) yet is not allowing Walmart.  The city was heavily involved in the change of ownership of the Bell Tower Mall site in the '80s.

I don't think it is fair compare the two. That's like criticizing a successful, responsible family man for being immature when he was a teenager. Different times, different eras. Mistakes were made, but things were learned from them. That's the important thing. Nothing hypocritical about it if you ask me.

[citylife]

mallguy, on 02 December 2011 - 06:58 PM, said:

We'll need to agree to disagree- I do see hypocrisy when the city allowed and continues to allow County Square (and, before that, the destruction of the Furman campus on the site, replaced by big-box discount stores and a cheaply built mall) yet is not allowing Walmart.  The city was heavily involved in the change of ownership of the Bell Tower Mall site in the '80s.

Yeah but that was in the 1980's. Times have changed and the people running the city now aren't the same people who ran the city back then. If Walmart wants to locate on this site so badly then they need to get their act together and design a building that is small, has elegant design, and mixed use elements. Oh and I really don't like the fact that the retailer stated this store would look different than any other Walmart in the country when it looks exactly like the new one in Easley design wise.

Edited by citylife, 02 December 2011 - 11:26 PM.

[vicupstate]

Interesting background on thefuture of retail.  Walmart should take heed.  The Dollar stores are taking a serious bite out of there sales.

http://www.postandco...-will-downsize/

[mallguy]

Greenville, on 02 December 2011 - 10:55 PM, said:

I don't think it is fair compare the two. That's like criticizing a successful, responsible family man for being immature when he was a teenager. Different times, different eras. Mistakes were made, but things were learned from them. That's the important thing. Nothing hypocritical about it if you ask me.

The McAlister Square "redevelopment" was in the last decade, when there was already a plan to improve the Pleasantburg Drive corridor.

[vicupstate]

mallguy, on 03 December 2011 - 01:46 PM, said:

The McAlister Square "redevelopment" was in the last decade, when there was already a plan to improve the Pleasantburg Drive corridor.

It's a stretch to say McAlister has been redeveloped, but to the degree that it has, it is an improvement over what was there before. And it is in keeping with the Pleasantburg plan.