Jump to content

PuppiesandKittens

Members+
  • Content Count

    283
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

65 Excellent

About PuppiesandKittens

  • Rank
    Whistle-Stop

Profile Information

  • Location
    29601

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Agreed. There are plenty of sites within walking distance of the downtown core where affordable housing could be added. Allegedly prime real estate shouldn't be used for it.
  2. Your statements are false. Contrary to your statements, I have been a member of property administration committees for several organizations that have large, traditional buildings built in the 1870s-1920s, and a key part of my job has been oversight of their maintenance, including exterior maintenance. I've posted this before and you simply missed it. I'm well aware of the costs of adding ornamentation to buildings, and otherwise using traditional styles. Just like the private and public sectors both used traditional styles in the past, they do in many instances today. The costs of ornamentation and using traditional styles are immaterial. What makes a difference, both for construction costs and long-term maintenance, is the type of material used for the construction, regardless of style and ornamentation. For example, sandstone is extremely expensive to maintain, even if it's used just for a plain wall. Next time, you may wish to get your facts straight about others before trying to insult them.
  3. When entire cities of neo-Renaissance architecture were built in the 1890s, people had a lot less money than they do now, so if people over 120 years ago could afford that style of architecture, we can now. Sticking sandstone or cement panels on the fronts of buildings doesn't add a lot of cost.
  4. The architectural styles that I mentioned were used for an overwhelming percentage of buildings built until the 1920s and are still used today. "New Classical" architecture is the term that is used for today's buildings that use historic styles. Check out: * the David H. Murdock Core Laboratory on the North Carolina Research Campus in Concord, NC * 15 Central Park West in NYC * the Schermerhorn Symphony Center in Nashville They're all beautiful and timeless. Since those are time-tested architectural styles, and "Le Glass Box du Jour" is not, I'd prefer to stick with what's time-tested.
  5. Agreed 100%. Even though most brick buildings downtown aren't, by themselves, gorgeous, the overall theme of sort-of traditional architecture with a lot of brick walls at least is consistent. A few monumental buildings in traditional styles--neo-Renaissance, Georgian, Regency, etc.- would really be great. A glass box is not great; even if it looks neat now, who knows how it'll age.
  6. As late as the 1980s and 1990s, Greenville had slews of department stores: downtown, at each mall, in strip malls in small towns around Greenville and small Belk stores even near mall Belks, such as at Lewis Plaza. There were 10 of over 100,000 square feet each if you include only the ones at Haywood, McAlister and Greenville malls, plus smaller ones all around. Now Greenville is down to the 5 large ones at Haywood plus a few smaller ones downtown (I count Mast as one) and in strip malls. First, why haven’t mainline department stores flooded Greenville with their off-price versions like in other cities? There is a Nordstrom Rack but that’s it. Second, we all know that department stores generally have lost market share. If they have in Greenville, it’s no wonder since they have only half of the large-format locations that they had even 20 years ago when Greenville was smaller. Why haven’t they opened up more larger locations? The County Square site could be a good replacement for the ones that served the McAlister Square trading area but I haven’t seen any of them express interest. Third, department stores are starting to open small locations again; Nordstrom for one is. Why hasn’t that happened in Greenville; if Belk has so many tiny stores around years ago, why not now? I don’t use Amazon much and I dislike boutiques even in malls; I prefer one-stop shopping in big stores. So I hope that the department stores era in Greenville isn’t over or ending.
  7. Great points. I see that the developers of Greenville Mall knew at the time of its construction that Haywood was looming. I can't figure out why GM was even built: "Oh, so a mall much larger than ours will be built about a mile away. Let's just build a smaller mall with dinkier anchors anyway. Don't worry, we'll be fine."
  8. How about: What if Haywood Mall was never built? Would downtown still have shriveled in the 1980s, with department stores moving to other malls?
  9. I think that this is a very nice-looking building. Uptown Charlotte is really attractive!
  10. Fair point. Maybe once the area picks up with more commercial and residential activity, the BB&T (or shall we call it Truist) building will be further improved.
  11. Agreed. A 1970s office building with a mural showing part of a person is just plain bad. The developer needs to just strip off the exterior of the BB&T building and start over, at least with a new exterior. That can be done to update buildings. Maybe then it could get more than $21/sf in rent.
  12. Says Google: https://www.businessinsider.com/the-15-cities-with-the-longest-commutes-in-the-world-2015-10 How could Myrtle Beach have the second-longest commutes in the world: is the workforce mostly hourly employees in tourism-related industries who live far away due to housing costs? Or what? Thanks.
  13. Correct. There were always some stores downtown, particularly in the blocks around the Hyatt, though, and the restaurants did a decent business (back in the days where the alternatives were, on the high end, Vince Perone's on Antrim Drive). Nobody I knew ever shopped much in those stores, and in the 1980s and 1990s you certainly would head to a mall for real shopping and would not have even considered downtown except for specific one-of-a-kind items (such as my grandparents going to McMahan Shoes for odd sizes or something). The few stores that downtown had certainly held up, though, dusty as they were. It's definitely not like it is now, when downtown can be your #1 destination, even for shopping, and an A-grade retailer would certainly not have even considered downtown for a new location back then; the stores that downtown had were just holdovers.
  14. Yes, it's night-and-day different and nicer. I agree that it's "MUCH better today than it was in 1975." Your statement above, though, was that downtown in 1975 was "Nothing but boarded up shops, prostitutes, drug dealers, and homeless people." I am unable to agree with that. It was kind of run down, but it still had a fair share of commercial activity. Its low point was in the 1980s. My family didn't spend much time downtown , but we could have since there were things there. When I worked downtown in the early 90s, I was surprised at how much business the stores that were there did, as dead as downtown seemed.
  15. Not in my recollection. In 1975, downtown had multiple department stores and lots of other large stores. It was declining and unattractive but was still a major retail destination. Plus most of Greenville’s office space was there. It was even more a center of commerce (measured by market share) than it is now.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.