Jump to content

Unity Park (New 160 Acre West End Park)


btoy

Recommended Posts


Meh…still not really impressed with this park so far. I thought there would be a lot more with $60 million being spent on it but I guess not. Honestly, I think the money should have gone to more important issues within the city instead like transit, affordable housing, sewer upgrades, litter control, paving roads, upgrading current parks, burying power lines, new landscaping, fixing street lights, etc. 

I also find it pretty hilarious the city can find all of this money for a new park but can’t find any for Greenlink and a pedestrian bridge over Verdae Blvd. Priorities. 

Edited by gman430
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/14/2021 at 7:55 AM, GvilleSC said:

The shade structures look awesome! 
 

A74B201F-C9BE-4D88-9D9D-19E1C1E77EE4.jpeg

No one will be calling them shade structures next July.    I love how these look (walked past them a few times already) and I love how little they obstruct any views  (in any direction, you can see across the "river" and through them and all around ) and seem to blend in so well with what is around them despite their modern appearance.  I mean that is quite a feat.   They should not be referred to as any kind of shelter (I asked the installers what they were and was told "picnic shelters")  in their current incantation, however. They wont shelter against sun or rain.   This is the south folks.  Maybe there will be more to these so there is more functionality added to their, again, really top notch, aesthetic. 

Edited by gvegascple
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, gvegascple said:

No one will be calling them shade structures next July.    I love how these look (walked past them a few times already) and I love how little they obstruct any views  (in any direction, you can see across the "river" and through them and all around ) and seem to blend in so well with what is around them despite their modern appearance.  I mean that is quite a feat.   They should not be referred to as any kind of shelter (I asked the installers what they were and was told "picnic shelters")  in their current incantation, however. They wont shelter against sun or rain.   This is the south folks.  Maybe there will be more to these so there is more functionality added to their, again, really top notch, aesthetic. 

Very interesting and I tend to agree. They may look cool but do they serve their purpose? I have been other places with "shelters" that have slots or holes and don't do a good job of sheltering. If they are not going to serve their purpose why spend money on them? If we are determined to spend the money, why not get ones that serve the purpose? It's kind of the same argument I have with the tower; why spend the money on an observation tower that isn't tall enough to observe anything? :dontknow:

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, gvegascple said:

No one will be calling them shade structures next July.    I love how these look (walked past them a few times already) and I love how little they obstruct any views  (in any direction, you can see across the "river" and through them and all around ) and seem to blend in so well with what is around them despite their modern appearance.  I mean that is quite a feat.   They should not be referred to as any kind of shelter (I asked the installers what they were and was told "picnic shelters")  in their current incantation, however. They wont shelter against sun or rain.   This is the south folks.  Maybe there will be more to these so there is more functionality added to their, again, really top notch, aesthetic. 

Look at the bright side. At least they didn’t tear down any of the big trees on site that can provide shade. Oh wait…

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, distortedlogic said:

Very interesting and I tend to agree. They may look cool but do they serve their purpose? I have been other places with "shelters" that have slots or holes and don't do a good job of sheltering. If they are not going to serve their purpose why spend money on them? If we are determined to spend the money, why not get ones that serve the purpose? It's kind of the same argument I have with the tower; why spend the money on an observation tower that isn't tall enough to observe anything? :dontknow:

They should rename this to Disunity Park…

Link to comment
Share on other sites


16 hours ago, gman430 said:

Look at the bright side. At least they didn’t tear down any of the big trees on site that can provide shade. Oh wait…

Somewhere in this thread there is a video that explains why and what trees were removed. They were invasive/non-native or of similar nature to warranty their removal.  They are adding back other trees that are more appropriate as well.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, vicupstate said:

Somewhere in this thread there is a video that explains why and what trees were removed. They were invasive/non-native or of similar nature to warranty their removal.  They are adding back other trees that are more appropriate as well.

Yea -- they went about it very sensibly and with a lot of thought from people who know what they're doing.

Unity Park is probably one of the most impactful projects in the state of South Carolina of the last (and next) decade. UrbanPlanet needs to have a warning label to caution against the whiplash caused by changing opinions/attitudes in the Greenville forum. Greenville lacks high design and good aesthetic one day. The next: beautiful, contemporary canopy sculptures are a waste of money and insufficient to serve as full shade and protection against rain. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, GvilleSC said:

Yea -- they went about it very sensibly and with a lot of thought from people who know what they're doing.

Unity Park is probably one of the most impactful projects in the state of South Carolina of the last (and next) decade. UrbanPlanet needs to have a warning label to caution against the whiplash caused by changing opinions/attitudes in the Greenville forum. Greenville lacks high design and good aesthetic one day. The next: beautiful, contemporary canopy sculptures are a waste of money and insufficient to serve as full shade and protection against rain. 

You forgot to mention that whole city center with creative architecture and classical elements being built on 385 that is nothing but a cheap disney looking waste! :lol::rolleyes:

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, distortedlogic said:

You forgot to mention that whole city center with creative architecture and classical elements being built on 385 that is nothing but a cheap disney looking waste! :lol::rolleyes:

There's a reason I don't chose to live in Mauldin.  :ermm:  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, distortedlogic said:

You forgot to mention that whole city center with creative architecture and classical elements being built on 385 that is nothing but a cheap disney looking waste! :lol::rolleyes:

I’m gonna take a wait and see approach on Bridgeway Station. 

Edited by gman430
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, vicupstate said:

Somewhere in this thread there is a video that explains why and what trees were removed. They were invasive/non-native or of similar nature to warranty their removal.  They are adding back other trees that are more appropriate as well.

Thanks. Too bad it’s gonna take 30 years for those trees to fully mature and provide adequate shade. It is what it is I guess. I still don’t how this park is costing $60 million either. I think the city got screwed over by Harper Corp. $10-$20 million is what I am seeing. Maybe I am missing something. :dontknow:

Edited by gman430
Link to comment
Share on other sites


2 hours ago, Tigers81 said:

Maybe the DRB just isn't use to seeing decent architectural bids come across; they're so used to the 4 story brick boxes! :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 4 weeks later...

They've installed clear, hard plastic covers over the wooden shade structures. This should put some of the concerns over shade and precipitation to rest. I think these will yellow over time, but hopefully they've already got plans for maintenance and replacement over time. 

  • Like 2
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.

  • 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.