Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

deltad22

Height restrictions / G-vegas

18 posts in this topic

Does anyone know if there are any height restrictions in the city of Greenville. Im just wondering why all the new buildings that are being built are about the same size. Greenville needs to quit playing around with these 12-15 story buildings, and build a 30-50 story building. Greenville is definitly growing faster than any other city in South Carolina, so it only makes sense to build a true skyscraper.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


I've never heard of such a thing. The reason you don't see large structures is that the growth is twoards the industrial end of the economy. ICAR is fantastic, but it isnt corporate to the extent that they will need a 30 storey tower. The market just isn't there. I think if they found the right company that it could be pulled off though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as the hight restriction question, I being the geek I am :P lol, emailed emporis and asked them if there was a height restriction and they said there is most definately not a height restriction. It's just that there isnt demand YET for a big high rise

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps Greenville's false city population is hindering us in the skyscraper department. They need to fix this quick! I meet new people everyday who are surprised at how large Greenville really is compared to the info they had.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Say if they were to fix it. The true population of the city would be what, around 200,000? Don't shoot me if I'm wrong just taking a shot in the dark.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

City of Greenville - 56,000

Greenville UA = 300,000

Its hard to say what the population would be if they could annex more. Say the rules changed tomorrow- how long would it take the city to annex that much? Would they want to?

How would the city's "false" population create any problems?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The "false population" does cause a problem, I have known people who look at the population and say "wow, 56,000 thats a map dot, nothing much there, then they get here and are like "56,000?, didn't you mean 560,000" They are amazed when they see how big it is after thinking this place was going to be a little hole in the wall. I'm not imune from this either, this past February me and some guys I work with were out in San Antonio for a couple weeks and we were going to go watch a basketball game at Texas A&M. I looked and saw the population of College Station and was like it shouldnt be hard to find the arena this place is small with pop. #'s comparable to G-ville I believe. We got there and was awstrucken by how big this "small town" was. Thats what some relocators think when they see the population of 56,000 "Wow I dont think I wanna relocate there theres nothing there, maybe a stop light or two." I creates a false perception and proves people wrong when they finally do break down and come here. If the popualtion were more accuarate we would probably see more demand for office and residential space. Henceforth raising demand for high rises.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My hometown suffers from this false population as well. I also remember seeing Greenville for the first time after looking at it on a map, and I was confused. It was far bigger than I thought it would be in person.

I look for updates on Charleston with road maps, and the same applies. They show Charleston as a mid-size city, yet if you compare it to Savannah, it appears to be smaller! Yet Charleston's UA is significantly larger than Savannah's. When I visited Savannah, I thought I was going to a bigger city and I was disappointed! It is very confusing.

It feels like Greenville and Chucktown need to annex their UA's just to be protrayed accurately on a map!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Interesting. I do agree that if you compare Spartanburg (~40,000) to a city of similar size (Dublin, GA) you would see they are nothing alike. I have never had it happen in reverse though.

So, we should push Greenville's Metro population of 580,000 which obviuosly better represents the area. Spartanburg's is about 250,000. Same goes for the rest of the state.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe this is also why many companies look at MSAs. I really don't know who actually looks at city population in isolation from other statistics like UAs and MSAs. But at the same time, I totally understand; I wish more of our cities' UAs could be annexed into the municipal boundaries as well. It'll help us shake some of the "country small-town" stigma that SC has. From the city population stats themselves, SC peers seem to be New England states or those in the Midwest (ND, SD, MT, ID) when that's actually not the case.

Perhaps we should pass legislation that says that wherever the population for any of SC's cities are listed, attached should be our laws governing annexation. Maybe that will clear things up a bit. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have the smallest cities in the US with those annexation laws...South Dakota with a population of about 750,000 people has a bigger city than in the whole state of SC <_< ...So does some other smaller states :rofl:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it is important for cities to have a decent municipal boundary for tax base purposes, good planning, etc. However, it is not everything. I do think that most people use MSA or UA figures when comparing cities for relocation decisions, etc. Atlanta is a good example. The city proper has not annexed anything since 1952 and only has a pathetic 420,000 or so out of 3,500,000 in the UA and over four million in the MSA. That's around 1/8th of the UA and 1/10th of the MSA. But that has not stopped it from attracting corporations and jobs and new residents to the region like kudzu. And a lot of that growth is landing in the city proper. I think cities need to try to annex when possible, but I think that their biggest priority should be to grow from within by creating better urban environments with greater density. They should make the city proper "the place to live" in their greater area (quality over quantity). Atlanta again is instructive here. The city lost population by the tens of thousands in the 1970s, 1980s, and early 1990s. But then the national trend back into cities hit along with the Olympics and things changed. Without annexing anything, the city has been adding thousands of new residents by redeveloping its urban environment. And the trend shows no sign of letting up. Columbia or Greenville or Charleston have similar things going on a smaller scale. That is as important as annexation in my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There aren't any large skyscrapers being built in Greenville because of two things:

1. There aren't any major corporate headquarters there with office space needs that would require a large skyscraper.

2. The office vacancy rate in Greenville is relatively high. Unlike other cities, at least, the downtown vacancy rate is much lower than the suburban vacancy rate. Thus at least if any new buildings are going to be built, chances are that they'll be downtown.

Check out http://www.southeastrebusiness.com and look at the Greenville snapshots. Those provide data about the Greenville office market.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Say if they were to fix it. The true population of the city would be what, around 200,000? Don't shoot me if I'm wrong just taking a shot in the dark.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't understand all these complaints about Greenville's "real" population. Thats like saying, well I'm 6 ft. tall, but my "real" height is 7 ft. A city's boundaries are what they are, and that's that. I agree that SC does have very restrictive annexation laws, but I think that comes from a bias against "city slickers" and a fear of government intrusion on your lives and property.

And, of course, companies look at regional population when making business decisions. Greenville isn't missing out on anything because of its "wrong" population.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand all these complaints about Greenville's "real" population. Thats like saying, well I'm 6 ft. tall, but my "real" height is 7 ft. A city's boundaries are what they are, and that's that. I agree that SC does have very restrictive annexation laws, but I think that comes from a bias against "city slickers" and a fear of government intrusion on your lives and property.

And, of course, companies look at regional population when making business decisions. Greenville isn't missing out on anything because of its "wrong" population.

This is where the question of "what defines a city?" comes in to play. A city is more than just what lies in the city limits. All of us can attest to that. I bet that nobody here can honestly say that they could live and function entirely within the city limits of Greenville. This becomes more true as the "city" gets smaller (Spartanburg, Anderson, Greenwood, Gaffney, etc).

Many of you probably live in the municipality and work outside of it, or vice-versa. Maybe you don't go to the municipality for either. There is nothing wrong with that, but it makes my point that you still list Greenville as your location. You tell people that when you get asked. Being in the city DOES NOT stop at that stupid line.

That is why you have to make the distinciton between the municipality and the city. The municipality is the corporate definition from which we derive the population (ie: The City of Greenville). The city is what you think of when I say Greenville. Downtown, Laurens Rd, Taylors, Woodruff Rd, Traveler's Rest, Paris Mountain, I-85, Mauldin, etc.... suburbs and all. This is what makes up Greenville (the city), which is a larger entity than The City of Greenville (the municipality).

Also, if you took the entire municipality of Greenville and stuck it down in Kansas somewhere, it most likely wouldn't function very well though it could function. This is more true for the bedroom communities like Mauldin or Simpsonville. They couldn't funtion at all, since their existance is tied to Greenville.

I forget who made the comparison to College Station, TX- a city of 50k. A city of that size is very small, and anyone who has spent 5 minutes in Greenville knows that 56k is a very decieving number.

This is why the "real" population is such a big deal. The CITY is much much more than what lies within the city limits. The locals know this, and you can't blame us for wanting to portay our cities for what they really are. The municipal limits are just a line.

It does come down to annexation in a sense, but it also couldn't hurt to list county or metro population along with the city's. I don't really have any good solution to the problem though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


This is where the question of "what defines a city?" comes in to play. A city is more than just what lies in the city limits. All of us can attest to that. I bet that nobody here can honestly say that they could live and function entirely within the city limits of Greenville. This becomes more true as the "city" gets smaller (Spartanburg, Anderson, Greenwood, Gaffney, etc).

Many of you probably live in the municipality and work outside of it, or vice-versa. Maybe you don't go to the municipality for either. There is nothing wrong with that, but it makes my point that you still list Greenville as your location. You tell people that when you get asked. Being in the city DOES NOT stop at that stupid line.

That is why you have to make the distinciton between the municipality and the city. The municipality is the corporate definition from which we derive the population (ie: The City of Greenville). The city is what you think of when I say Greenville. Downtown, Laurens Rd, Taylors, Woodruff Rd, Traveler's Rest, Paris Mountain, I-85, Mauldin, etc.... suburbs and all. This is what makes up Greenville (the city), which is a larger entity than The City of Greenville (the municipality).

Also, if you took the entire municipality of Greenville and stuck it down in Kansas somewhere, it most likely wouldn't function very well though it could function. This is more true for the bedroom communities like Mauldin or Simpsonville. They couldn't funtion at all, since their existance is tied to Greenville.

I forget who made the comparison to College Station, TX- a city of 50k. A city of that size is very small, and anyone who has spent 5 minutes in Greenville knows that 56k is a very decieving number.

This is why the "real" population is such a big deal. The CITY is much much more than what lies within the city limits. The locals know this, and you can't blame us for wanting to portay our cities for what they really are. The municipal limits are just a line.

It does come down to annexation in a sense, but it also couldn't hurt to list county or metro population along with the city's. I don't really have any good solution to the problem though.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Good points!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.