Jump to content

Unity Park (New 160 Acre West End Park)

btoy

By btoy
in Greenville

 Share

Recommended Posts

distortedlogic Town

distortedlogic

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, gman430 said:

So the observation tower went back to its old height? 

Interesting. It sounds like they are just trying out a series of designs, and this one is closer to the original 120 ft one (this at 110). It's way better than the previous one, wasn't that like 80 ft? 

I'm still doubtful though; just seems if it's not actually a tower, it would be rather pointless. I think it needs to be more in the 200 ft range with an iconic look and feel. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

gman
gman

I just got back home from a walk on the SRT from the Cancer Survivors Park to the Commons area. I have one word for Unity Park. “Spectacular.” Seriously folks, we are so lucky to have a downtown and p

gman430
gman430
SVL
SVL

Unity Park marks one year anniversary with Reedy River Wetlands Preserve  

Posted Images

gvegascple Hamlet

gvegascple

Posted
Posted
10 hours ago, gman430 said:

So the observation tower went back to its old height? 

This is a great report and great news about the tower.  I was already really excited about the park and seeing updates trickle out just keep me pumped up.  So 120 feet tall.  Has anyone taken any drone shots from that height and that spot? Would be cool to see the expected 360 views.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
gvegascple Hamlet

gvegascple

Posted
Posted (edited)
10 hours ago, distortedlogic said:

Interesting. It sounds like they are just trying out a series of designs, and this one is closer to the original 120 ft one (this at 110). It's way better than the previous one, wasn't that like 80 ft? 

I'm still doubtful though; just seems if it's not actually a tower, it would be rather pointless. I think it needs to be more in the 200 ft range with an iconic look and feel. 

it has to be at least tall enough to view the all of the park it is in and that would include any further future park expansion north if that were to ever happen.   If we go lower than that, it becomes a joke.   I would assume the point of having it is to see things.  80 is too low in my opinion and  200 might be out of scale for the size of the park it is in.

What is happening to the area in front of Swamp Rabbit Cross Fit and Soul Yoga?  is it a future phase? will it still be a green space or did that get cut and we could expect a developer to put an apt complex there?

Edited by gvegascple
Link to comment
Share on other sites
gvegascple Hamlet

gvegascple

Posted
Posted (edited)
20 minutes ago, Den2Gvl said:

Hughes and Timmons own that land...

is it bound by the zoning around the park or grandfathered to something else? what type of development is allowed there?  Is it going to be blend in with how the park is planned or be something in stark contrast?  I assume Hughes will do something appropriate that adds the park.  Condos with bottom floor retail/office space I suppose if done tastefully wouldnt be awful and still allow some public access.

Edited by gvegascple
Link to comment
Share on other sites
distortedlogic Town

distortedlogic

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, gvegascple said:

it has to be at least tall enough to view the all of the park it is in and that would include any further future park expansion north if that were to ever happen.   If we go lower than that, it becomes a joke.   I would assume the point of having it is to see things.  80 is too low in my opinion and  200 might be out of scale for the size of the park it is in.

 

Those are my points as well (except the last one). 80 feet wouldn't even get a viewer above some trees, not to mention this is not a higher elevation area of the downtown.  The original description of the tower was to give a viewer "a bird's eye view of downtown and the surounding mountains," or something close to that. 80 feet would fail miserably at that and be a waste of money IMO. The 110/120 foot towers would work better, but still miss the goal, in my opinion. 120 feet is not very tall at all. The Wells Fargo building is listed at 115 and that is nothing. Again, I do not think that would accomplish the "goal" of the tower, especially with the slightly lower elevation of the park. To me, if we're going to do something like that, do it right (like we did with Liberty bridge), make it a destination, a recognizable symbol. I've mentioned this one before, but something like Bok Tower in FL https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bok_Tower_Gardens would be really nice. It is 205 feet and doesn't overwhelm anything, but could provide great views (I don't think the public is actually allowed inside but...) . Anyway, it doesn't makes sense to spend millions on a pointless "tower" that doesn't provide views of anthing other that the top of a few trees.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
gvegascple Hamlet

gvegascple

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, distortedlogic said:

Those are my points as well (except the last one). 80 feet wouldn't even get a viewer above some trees, not to mention this is not a higher elevation area of the downtown.  The original description of the tower was to give a viewer "a bird's eye view of downtown and the surounding mountains," or something close to that. 80 feet would fail miserably at that and be a waste of money IMO. The 110/120 foot towers would work better, but still miss the goal, in my opinion. 120 feet is not very tall at all. The Wells Fargo building is listed at 115 and that is nothing. Again, I do not think that would accomplish the "goal" of the tower, especially with the slightly lower elevation of the park. To me, if we're going to do something like that, do it right (like we did with Liberty bridge), make it a destination, a recognizable symbol. I've mentioned this one before, but something like Bok Tower in FL https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bok_Tower_Gardens would be really nice. It is 205 feet and doesn't overwhelm anything, but could provide great views (I don't think the public is actually allowed inside but...) . Anyway, it doesn't makes sense to spend millions on a pointless "tower" that doesn't provide views of anthing other that the top of a few trees.  

I want some Gman drone shots.  I like the idea of mirroring the mill smoke stacks as kind of a nod to our history.   it would be cool to be up there and be reminded of our history with some indications on the way up of where local mill tower stacks line up in the stairwell etc.  And then looking out seeing them across the landscape.   It just seems like an extra way to add an educational experience and a history lesson to the whole experience.  I could see school field trips to the tower to learn about our mill history as part of it.  Anyway, I digress.  I would also guess that the cost per sq ft to build may rise as the height goes up. if true there is a limit where it becomes not financially feasible I would think.  

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
distortedlogic Town

distortedlogic

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, gvegascple said:

I want some Gman drone shots.  I like the idea of mirroring the mill smoke stacks as kind of a nod to our history.   it would be cool to be up there and be reminded of our history with some indications on the way up of where local mill tower stacks line up in the stairwell etc.  And then looking out seeing them across the landscape.   It just seems like an extra way to add an educational experience and a history lesson to the whole experience.  I could see school field trips to the tower to learn about our mill history as part of it.  Anyway, I digress.  I would also guess that the cost per sq ft to build may rise as the height goes up. if true there is a limit where it becomes not financially feasible I would think.  

I can get behind that. Just make it nice, make it worthwhile, make it "an experience." 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Exile Hamlet

Exile

Posted
Posted
23 minutes ago, distortedlogic said:

Those are my points as well (except the last one). 80 feet wouldn't even get a viewer above some trees, not to mention this is not a higher elevation area of the downtown.  The original description of the tower was to give a viewer "a bird's eye view of downtown and the surounding mountains," or something close to that. 80 feet would fail miserably at that and be a waste of money IMO. The 110/120 foot towers would work better, but still miss the goal, in my opinion. 120 feet is not very tall at all. The Wells Fargo building is listed at 115 and that is nothing. Again, I do not think that would accomplish the "goal" of the tower, especially with the slightly lower elevation of the park. To me, if we're going to do something like that, do it right (like we did with Liberty bridge), make it a destination, a recognizable symbol. I've mentioned this one before, but something like Bok Tower in FL https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bok_Tower_Gardens would be really nice. It is 205 feet and doesn't overwhelm anything, but could provide great views (I don't think the public is actually allowed inside but...) . Anyway, it doesn't makes sense to spend millions on a pointless "tower" that doesn't provide views of anthing other that the top of a few trees.  

My house is "in the woods," and I've got several Sweetgum trees behind my house that quite possibly approach 120 feet. This tower should be at a height that no tree native to this area could possibly approach. 120 feet isn't nearly enough.

And still not a fan of the metal. It just looks like an expensive jungle gym.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
gvegascple Hamlet

gvegascple

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Exile said:

My house is "in the woods," and I've got several Sweetgum trees behind my house that quite possibly approach 120 feet. This tower should be at a height that no tree native to this area could possibly approach. 120 feet isn't nearly enough.

And still not a fan of the metal. It just looks like an expensive jungle gym.

According the the pdf posted a few posts back, 140- 145 feet would get us to around the height of our historical mill smoke stacks.  I like that height, I think it would be a perfect compromise. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
distortedlogic Town

distortedlogic

Posted
Posted
17 minutes ago, Den2Gvl said:

It's my understanding that the tower will be 120' tall but the observation deck will be 100'. Is that right? 

If you look at the rendering above, it looks like the observation level is indeed a story or so below the top. I can't tell if maybe there's also an observation level at the very top? Additionally, this latest proposal is for 110 feet, not 120, which is what is listed in the packet. So if the rendering is correct and the tower is 110 feet, I would guess the observation deck is at 90-100 feet. 

I stand by my earlier opinion that this needs to be more in the 175 -200 foot range to make much of an impact and serve the purpose of the tower itself. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
gman430 Megalopolis

gman430

Posted
Posted (edited)
20 minutes ago, distortedlogic said:

If you look at the rendering above, it looks like the observation level is indeed a story or so below the top. I can't tell if maybe there's also an observation level at the very top? Additionally, this latest proposal is for 110 feet, not 120, which is what is listed in the packet. So if the rendering is correct and the tower is 110 feet, I would guess the observation deck is at 90-100 feet. 

I stand by my earlier opinion that this needs to be more in the 175 -200 foot range to make much of an impact and serve the purpose of the tower itself. 

The latest proposal has it at 120 feet not 110. Page 72 here: https://greenvillejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/UnityParkCouncilUpdate12-12-19_201912120858238201.pdf I agree that it should and needs to be taller.

Edited by gman430
Link to comment
Share on other sites
distortedlogic Town

distortedlogic

Posted
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, gman430 said:

The latest proposal has it at 120 feet not 110. I agree that it should and needs to be taller.

Click on the journal link, and look under the rendering; it says it's now at 110 feet. I think the orignal proposal was 120 (somewhere there is a link to a packet on the project and it states 120). 

BTW, thanks for the awesome pics, as usual!  

Edited by distortedlogic
Link to comment
Share on other sites
gman430 Megalopolis

gman430

Posted
Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, distortedlogic said:

Here is the link to the packet.  https://greenvillejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/UnityParkCouncilUpdate12-12-19_201912120858238201.pdf

Starting on page 70 there are a couple of views from 100 feet, about where the viewing deck would be. 

Ahhh...so the tower is 120 feet tall and the observation deck is 100 feet? Got it. :thumbsup:

Edited by gman430
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • 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.