Unity Park (New 160 Acre West End Park)

[GvilleSC]

35 minutes ago, vicupstate said:

We didn't expect any different. 

 

This park serves three main functions. 1) a great place to take kids that doesn't cost anything yet offers something for their parents too. 2) to serve as the  premier node along the SRT 3) provide a  worthy backdrop and additional reason to visit the  more adult type activities  fostered by the Delano warehouse building and the Welborn Commons. 

If you aren't a parent the first function doesn't really appeal to you.   

You also have to recognize the majority of trees are not mature, so the park will look and function a lot better when they have.  It will also make more sense why this park was put here when the Delano building and the others that will soon follow are built along the edge of the park.       

Those functions, plus the environmental ones that are less visible. This park's creation has a huge impact on flood management for the Reedy, storm water management, soil clean-up, and preserving open space for future generations. It's a great use for hospitality tax funds.

[gman]

14 hours ago, apaladin said:

Color me unimpressed. Sorry. 

Why a I not surprised? My goodness, have you even visited the park? It is tremendous. 

14 hours ago, gman430 said:

The protestors against the park at the grand opening this morning was the best part.  

Protestors? Seriously? What are they protesting? I am glad there was no media attention on what had to be less than a handful of uninformed citizens. 

Update after reading the Greenville News this morning. You might know they put more focus on just four protestors than on the thousands there to celebrate the park. I love this from Lillian Brock Fleming. 

Councilmember Lillian Brock Flemming, who represents west Greenville, said city councilmembers have fielded many questions about spending for the park. 

"Folks, we've been waiting since 1939," Flemming said at the ceremony Thursday. "You're going to have to get over it, because the park is here." 

 

Edited May 20, 2022 by gman

[PuppiesandKittens]

2 hours ago, gman said:

Why a I not surprised? My goodness, have you even visited the park? It is tremendous. 

Protestors? Seriously? What are they protesting? I am glad there was no media attention on what had to be less than a handful of uninformed citizens. 

Update after reading the Greenville News this morning. You might know they put more focus on just four protestors than on the thousands there to celebrate the park. I love this from Lillian Brock Fleming. 

Councilmember Lillian Brock Flemming, who represents west Greenville, said city councilmembers have fielded many questions about spending for the park. 

"Folks, we've been waiting since 1939," Flemming said at the ceremony Thursday. "You're going to have to get over it, because the park is here." 

 

The Greenville News article was a disgrace, even quoting the words that the protesters were saying about Knox White.

If I'm understanding correctly, the protesters are upset in part because the park was opened while homelessness exists.  The park and homeless programs, to my knowledge, are funded separately, so having the park does not detract from homeless outreach efforts.  Would the protesters rather have no park, as homeless will sadly continue whether or not the park was created?

[GvilleSC]

16 minutes ago, PuppiesandKittens said:

The Greenville News article was a disgrace, even quoting the words that the protesters were saying about Knox White.

If I'm understanding correctly, the protesters are upset in part because the park was opened while homelessness exists.  The park and homeless programs, to my knowledge, are funded separately, so having the park does not detract from homeless outreach efforts.  Would the protesters rather have no park, as homeless will sadly continue whether or not the park was created?

The Greenville News has embraced an outrage first approach toward the stories they choose to tell. It comes across, at least to me, as an amateur tryout for the parent company, USA Today. I've become much more satisfied reading the stories and investigative journalism from The Post and Courier. 

[vicupstate]

Media always gravitates toward division and controversy.  

[vistatiger]

4 hours ago, PuppiesandKittens said:

The Greenville News article was a disgrace, even quoting the words that the protesters were saying about Knox White.

If I'm understanding correctly, the protesters are upset in part because the park was opened while homelessness exists.  The park and homeless programs, to my knowledge, are funded separately, so having the park does not detract from homeless outreach efforts.  Would the protesters rather have no park, as homeless will sadly continue whether or not the park was created?

That's what I thought too  but more so upset that the money would have been better spent on affordable housing at a time when apartment rent is becoming out of reach for many.. It is becoming a huge problem. Almost impossible for many (even employed) now to find a unit where you are only spending the recommended 30% of your income on rent.

Edited May 20, 2022 by vistatiger

[rabbit seisin]

Now I'm eager to hear the $66m solution that will end homelessness in Greenville; I'm sure Portland and San Francisco would be thrilled to know about it as well.  

[PuppiesandKittens]

2 hours ago, vistatiger said:

That's what I thought too  but more so the money would have been better spent on affordable housing at a time when apartment rent is becoming out of reach for many.. It is becoming a huge problem. Almost impossible for many (even employed) now to find a unit where you are only spending the recommended 30% of your income on rent.

At least the tourism taxes that were used for Unity Park could not be used for anything other than tourism-related expenses.  I would think that other private and public funds used may also have limitations.  

Ending homelessness needs to be a bigger priority but protesting the park, not having the park, and calling Knox White names, aren’t the way to do it. 

[NewlyUpstate]

5 hours ago, vistatiger said:

That's what I thought too  but more so upset that the money would have been better spent on affordable housing at a time when apartment rent is becoming out of reach for many.. It is becoming a huge problem. Almost impossible for many (even employed) now to find a unit where you are only spending the recommended 30% of your income on rent.

The city did donate 18 million dollars worth of land towards affordable housing in the immediate area of the park

[GVLover]

Generally, I support this park but to completely smear/undermine the concerns of the protestors isn’t helpful. The fact of the matter is Unity Park will contribute, if not exacerbate, gentrification across West Greenville which will disproportionately affect Black families which according to census data, are moving out of the City in massive numbers I would imagine because it’s unaffordable. Yes, 9 acres of affordable housing is cool and all, but it seems more affordable housing efforts in Greenville are towards that are 55+ and that’s not enough to stop the rapid displacement that will occur over the coming decade. 
 

There were countless articles from many respectable organizations saying how this park will knock down racial disparities Greenville, but ultimately in the next few years there will be a radical shift in demographics in the area largely attributed to the development of this park. Again, we cannot discount these concerns no matter how nice the park happens to be and I’m sure over the coming years there will be articles regarding how this park failed in its vision to finally sow the divide in West Greenville and only causes more gentrification because the City didn’t give a damn to do truly anything about it.

I also find it concerning that the City could acknowledge the history that GPD had a shooting range in the 1950’s that would leave bullet holes in Black people homes, and yet the tower is going to be there to partially honor them. It’s sort of a smack in the face to those who had to endure such trauma in the name “Unity.”

Edited May 20, 2022 by GVLover

[PuppiesandKittens]

GVLover, in my view (all are welcome to disagree), the park will help some and harm some.

Assuming that the park will drive up real estate values, which it might or might not do more than real estate values would go up anyway, then it would help people who already own homes.  They could sell their homes for a nice profit.  Their property taxes would go up but property taxes are really low in Greenville anyway.  Increased housing prices would harm renters.  But if the park brings in new development to the area, it will create jobs that are accessible to locals.

So it’s a mixed bag.  In general I’d say that anything that increases jobs and property values is overall a good thing, but clearly more needs to be done to help people who are adversely affected by gentrification.

But for protesters to scream at or about Knox White makes me, and likely others, less sensitive to their concerns.  I was hoping that Greenville is spared the toxic political discourse in other areas. 

Edited May 20, 2022 by PuppiesandKittens

[GvilleSC]

Yes, I wonder how the neighborhood faith and community leaders felt as the protesters shouted on their behalf during the invocation. Lillian Brock Fleming nailed the history of the park’s creation, and its symbolism to the community. No liberal in need of a project for the day is going to change what actual neighborhood residents feel. 

Edited May 20, 2022 by GvilleSC

[GVLover]

19 minutes ago, GvilleSC said:

LOL- yes, I wonder how the neighborhood faith and community leaders felt as the protesters shouted on their behalf during the invocation. Lillian Brock Fleming nailed the history of the park’s creation, and its symbolism to the community. No liberal in need of a project for the day is going to change what actual neighborhood residents feel. 

Symbolism is the keyword. Again, the reality is there will be mass displacement in West Greenville because of this park. We will all enjoy gman430 shots of mixed-use development going up, houses that have long been neglected being turned into impressive homes, and more stores/restaurants nearby for us to patronize but let’s not be obtuse here and pretend as the demographics of the area aren’t already shifting rapidly.
 

If I’m not mistaken, West Greenville is actually not even majority Black anymore, though this park alleged goal is to build a park in a community that was long neglected one, that same community will not be able to enjoy the benefits of the park once they’re priced out.  We all want to see progress, but there are real world consequences to developments and so the City of Greenville has to make a choice regarding rather they’ll look to preserve more homes in this area (community land trust is an excellent option IMO) or pretend as if 9 acres of 55+ housing is the answer. 
 

—

None of this negates the pride residents must feel about this park in the mean time. It is beautiful and the contributions they made to the planning process, providing their stories, and so on will be forever engrained in this park.

Edited May 20, 2022 by GVLover

[PuppiesandKittens]

I think that data about how many residents are moving out of the area, and where they are going, would be useful to analyze the scope of the problem

[clemsonfan]

I agree we should be super-concerned with housing affordability, but decrying efforts to make neighborhoods nicer on the grounds that it will cause gentrification is absurd. By that logic, we should drill the streets full of potholes and stop collecting the garbage, hey, the rents will go down and nobody will be displaced.

Also, research I have read on this has shown that the people in a "gentrifying" neighborhood have very mixed--and not entirely negative--opinions about it. Gentrification is not all bad for the people who live there. Yes, people don't want their rent to go up. But at the same time they love living in a thriving area with new, nice amenities, access to shopping, leisure opportunities, etc. The residents of the Unity Park neighborhood will have a great new park in their backyard and they will reap enjoyment from being in a better place, offsetting a lot if not all of the potential rent increases, if they eventually happen.

Finally, think if this park was built in a wealthy area, people would be bitterly complaining that only rich white people are getting beautiful parks and poor Black areas are being neglected by getting no parks. Much better IMO to put it where historically underprivileged people have better access to it. 

In sum, let's make every neighborhood in Greenville as nice as we can, and as for housing affordability we can (and should) address that, but by other means than deliberately living in a depressing city to drive rents down, if you want that move to Youngstown or Decatur.

[GVLover]

It’s hard to argue against data as far as the displacement of Black residents in neighborhoods surrounding Unity Park. Of course some people in the neighborhood own their homes, and will benefit from this park but the vast majority of Black residents in Greenville likely have lived in the area decades, yet do not own their homes.

I haven’t argued against the park being built once, what I am arguing is the City of Greenville understands the concerns that I share as far as displacing current residents of the surrounding neighborhood, and instead of looking to actually do anything about it, everyone wants to be surprised in 2030 when Downtown and surrounding areas are officially 90% white. As previously stated, a community land trust is an excellent option to preserve affordability in the area. 9 acres of 55+ housing won’t do a damn thing when hundreds of other acres are fair game to displace residents of the area.

—

“For the first time since the U.S. Census Bureau started collecting neighborhood-level data more than 60 years ago, West Greenville is no longer a majority Black neighborhood, research shows. 

It's not just West Greenville. Southernside will reach the same tipping point by 2025 based on current trends. Nicholtown and Pleasant Valley are also vulnerable to the change, according to research compiled by Ken Kolb, a sociology professor at Furman University. 

The data, from American Community Survey five-year estimates collected by the U.S. Census Bureau, point to a troubling future for these neighborhoods. 

Without some sort of change, the market will slowly squeeze out Black renters from the historic Black neighborhoods established decades ago and make housing more expensive.”

https://www.greenvilleonline.com/story/news/local/greenville/downtown/2021/05/17/west-greenville-southernside-sc-no-longer-majority-black-neighborhood/5040373001/

 

Edited May 21, 2022 by GVLover

[GvilleSC]

I don’t think I understand the repeated comments about Greenville not doing enough. Can someone explain what it is that they believe Greenville is limiting their action to? I think the city, and certainly the council members, understand this and continue working on it. 
 

This park is an 80 year promise realized. The city engaged the neighborhood to ensure they understood their vision for this green space. The city purchased all of the land south of the park, and was very strategic in their re-zoning and planning to protect the residents, and strategically direct investment.

[GVLover]

1 hour ago, GvilleSC said:

I don’t think I understand the repeated comments about Greenville not doing enough. Can someone explain what it is that they believe Greenville is limiting their action to? I think the city, and certainly the council members, understand this and continue working on it. 
 

This park is an 80 year promise realized. The city engaged the neighborhood to ensure they understood their vision for this green space. The city purchased all of the land south of the park, and was very strategic in their re-zoning and planning to protect the residents, and strategically direct investment.

I’ve stated multiple times that Greenville only has contributed 9 acres of land dedicated to affordable housing for this park, which likely going to be mainly 55+ housing and that’s all. Understanding that the Black population of West Greenville has already fallen below 50%, and Southernside is on the same trajectory now that the park is officially open, what has the City actually done to alleviate concerns for those still living in the area?
 

If you drive by the area over the coming years, and see U-Haul after U-Haul of moving people out, you cannot claim ignorance regarding what’s happening simply because you wanted a block of homes that were traditionally an eye-sore to be renovated. If we’re okay with our decisions, then we should own them but to pretend as if the City has already done enough to preserve affordability, and that parks don’t lead to gentrification is poppycock. More has to be done. 
 

I think my point was loss somehow in the mix: we shouldn’t completely discount what the protestors were saying. I don’t necessarily agree with their methods, but to write their concerns off completely is an injustice to the residents that are allegedly supposed to enjoy this park, but will removed from the area over the coming years quite literally in the name of ‘Unity.’

The yellow tracts below are dedicated to affordable housing, everything else is fair game. 
 

“

Greenville isn’t only incorporating lessons from its history of segregation into Unity Park. It will also use what it learned from the popular Falls Park on the Reedy in downtown Greenville. In 2002, Mayor White’s administration removed a four-lane highway overpass to create the park. This project ultimately changed downtown from languishing into flourishing.

But Falls Park also led to expensive development. This taught Greenville to invest more in affordable spaces, so that a neighborhood with attractive, renovated public places doesn’t become inaccessible to long-time residents.

“We’re more aware now that ‘OK, we build this park, it’s going to gentrify,’” Mayor White says. “Learning a lesson, what we’re saying is let’s redefine public-private partnerships going forward. When the public investment’s made, we’re going to make sure the private investment is inclusive, at least to a strong degree.”

The lesson is 9 acres of land, and an occasional affordable housing project with 14 “affordable” apartments out of 70 total units. 

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-29/unity-park-recalls-history-of-segregation-and-baseball

Edited May 21, 2022 by GVLover

[gman]

“Housing for chronically homeless expanding in Greenville at site of encampment.” https://www.postandcourier.com/greenville/news/housing-for-chronically-homeless-expanding-in-greenville-at-site-of-encampment/article_3737fb5e-d627-11ec-9e59-cffcaff69003.html?utm_campaign=blox&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social

[NewlyUpstate]

I'm curious - what is the solution to stop the gentrification of the more affordable areas surrounding Greenville as Greenville becomes more desirable?

In my view and experience, Greenville is doing way more than I have seen other cities do. 18 million dollars of land donated to affordable housing is pretty unheard of. Getting a place like the Delano to reserve 20% of their units for affordable housing doesn't happen very often. Even if that donated land is primarily going towards the 55+ community, that should be priority number 1 because that age group is more at risk of the impacts of gentrification. Most are probably living off fixed incomes and would like to stay put at this point in their life, whereas younger people are more capable of dealing with rising prices.

I'm probably sort of guilty, I bought a house in the southernside neighborhood (2nd owner of a newer build, so at least I didn't displace a long term resident), but that same house placed in the Augusta Rd area would've been at least 2x the cost, without exaggerating one bit.

Edited May 21, 2022 by NewlyUpstate

[GvilleSC]

26 minutes ago, GVLover said:

I’ve stated multiple times that Greenville only has contributed 9 acres of land dedicated to affordable housing for this park, which likely going to be mainly 55+ housing and that’s all. Understanding that the Black population of West Greenville has already fallen below 50%, and Southernside is on the same trajectory now that the park is officially open, what has the City actually done to alleviate concerns for those still living in the area?
 

I think my point was loss somehow in the mix: we shouldn’t completely discount what the protestors were saying. I don’t necessarily agree with their methods, but to write their concerns off completely is an injustice to the residents that are allegedly supposed to enjoy this park, but will removed from the area over the coming years quite literally in the name of ‘Unity.’

The yellow tracts below are dedicated to affordable housing, everything else is fair game. 
 

Let's be clear here:

The City of Greenville has made serious efforts and taking big strides to ensure the preservation of affordable housing in the Southernside neighborhood. It wasn't free, and it wasn't without thought and effort. Secondly, it's quite presumptuous to assume that their efforts are now complete. I don't know where that notion comes from. 

As for the dramatic numbers that keep getting referenced regarding the racial makeup of West Greenville and Southernside: have you ever considered that more diverse population moving into a neighborhood is going to dilute the concentration of one single race? You're referencing percentages, not actual households. The neighborhoods are densifying and a lot of previously undeveloped land is being developed. Yes, existing housing is also turning over, but that's not the entire story. 

[vicupstate]

 

1. The FIRST projects on the 8 acres are for seniors but I haven't seen anything saying MOST of the housing being for seniors only. 

2. Gentrification and diversification of West Greenville was already occurring before the park was started or even planned.  I do agree it will be made worse by the park, so mitigation is necessary. While some big steps have been taken, it can't be a one time scenario.

3.  All of the land that the city owns, whether donated or not, is vacant, so anything built on that property as well as the considerable amount of private property in the area is going to add population and change the existing demographics in a significant way.  Its unavoidable and not necessarily a bad thing.   

4. Charleston has been dealing with this same situation, only more so and for a lot longer.  They have been a national leader in addressing the issue, and in many different ways. Despite that, gentrification, for better or worse, has not stopped or even slowed.  It just that there has been mitigation that the free market would never have provided. 

 

[PuppiesandKittens]

GVLover, the issue that should be cause for concern is lower-income people being pinched more due to housing costs climbing faster than incomes, or lower-income people needing to move due to unaffordable rent increases.  I think that everyone can sympathize with that.  That issue is county-wide and affects a range of people, not just a specific demographic group in the neighborhood around the park.  
 

When people complain that a residents of a certain neighborhood are now only x% members of one heritage, expressing the concerns that way doesn’t come across as particularly inclusive.  Aren’t people of Hispanic or Asian heritage welcome, at least?

 

I am white, and if Alta Vista or Collins Creek changed to become less than 50% white, I’d be fine with that.

Edited May 21, 2022 by PuppiesandKittens

[distortedlogic]

Gentrification is always an interesting topic to discuss. I certainly understand the point of view that does not want people to be displaced from their homes; I think that can be a terrible event for those people. However, I think the phenomenon is way more complex than we probably make it. Having said that, I honestly am not sure where the balance is. Areas that typically get gentrified are areas that are either rundown, have been stagnant for many years (thus "passed by" by surrounding areas), or have have been abandoned completely. In a free market system, someone is eventually going to see potential to rejuvenate those areas and make a bit of money. Once those homes or areas are fixed up, others will follow. The primary reason an area gets gentrified is not based on race, it is based on the potential the area has for other people to fix them up and make money.  It may well be true that many of those areas tend to be majority minority, but it's not like people are out there saying; " Hey, here's a minority neighborhood we can transform to a majority neighborhood." The issue is wealth vs non wealth. As a middle class citizen, I cannot afford to live downtown or in the posh neighborhoods surrounding it. I live in a suburban neighborhood. If my neighborhood became rundown over time, my home value would lower, and eventually someone with money would come in and start gentrifying it. If the values went above what I could afford I'd have to leave. Should I expect others to come in and guarantee me a way to stay in my home in a neighborhood that became rundown and I have not helped maintain? That is not how the free market works.

I think new projects incorporating "affordable housing" is fantastic, but what can reasonably be done beyond that?  Let's be honest, some of these neighborhoods (like some of the mill villages) aren't just rundown, they are completely trashed. Do we expect people, cities, and developers to leave these neighborhoods as they are? What about the ones that are fairly well maintained but just on the edge of development that prices them out of  the area? Do we expect those values not to rise and stay stagnant? I think it is way more complex than we are making it;cities and developers can't solve the issues surrounding generational neighborhoods that often fall into decline and get remade. I think it is great cities are doing more to address it and try to minimize it or help with transitions, but a city or developer cannot solve the puzzle.

[GVLer]

I was in the park today. Looks nice and very busy. Two comments: the Michelin Green side is full. The other side of the river was empty. And an amphitheater stage would provide a lot of bang for minimal bucks.