GvilleSC

Rivers Edge

Recommended Posts

If the city was going to gold plate something, it would not be a public works facility. Since the design hasn't been completed, let alone put to bid, that figure is not valid.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


"Can you provide examples of projects the DRB has run off?  Frankly, some projects need to be run off. "

 

Yes - 1) Mills Mill adjacent residential project was run off - owners submitted a great project in this transitional area, but denied b/c the plan had a security gate to the patrking lot - logical, desirable, good looking project. Not there - empty.

       -  2) the Gateway site where old auditorium used to be - had apartments planned by out-of-town developers - but with so many subjective revisions mandated, the project was killed. Compared to McBee Staion - much better. But still a hole.

      -   3) the mixed use project proposed at Main at River St. faced seemingly endless hurdles trying to force preservation of a building that was ultimately determined to be (just as the owner initially claimed) - old and useless. It is demolished now as 1st requested, but the long bureaucratic delay put it into the Great      Recession.Had the owner has not been unreasonably delayed by "those that know best", then there would be an attractive development there today and the owner could be realizing the benefits of his land. Empty lot - nothing but dirt.

     - 4) the beautiful contempoary design for a major new project was denied where Carolina Ale House is today. The DRB falsely claimed that building is "historic" - it went to court - the DRB lost. It was evident they used that excuse to stop a contemporary design. Now a bar, not a high-rise office.

 

Frankly, this DRB is bad for Greenville. It can/should be vastly improved. Ask anyone that goes before "those that know best" - or the staff. They aren't there to help.

Compliance with guidelines is one thing - but anal overreaching into minusha with subjective staff/politicians or whatever runs off good projects. Guidelines - yes. Help & assitance - yes. But no project "needs to be run off" - that's not the attitude we want here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought the Mills Mill project was rejected by the planning commission not the DRB. There are new projects planned for the gateway site and at Main and River Streets. Oh and I love that Carolina Ale House that preserved a historic building.

Edited by gman430

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Can you provide examples of projects the DRB has run off? Frankly, some projects need to be run off. "

Yes - 1) Mills Mill adjacent residential project was run off - owners submitted a great project in this transitional area, but denied b/c the plan had a security gate to the patrking lot - logical, desirable, good looking project. Not there - empty.

- 2) the Gateway site where old auditorium used to be - had apartments planned by out-of-town developers - but with so many subjective revisions mandated, the project was killed. Compared to McBee Staion - much better. But still a hole.

- 3) the mixed use project proposed at Main at River St. faced seemingly endless hurdles trying to force preservation of a building that was ultimately determined to be (just as the owner initially claimed) - old and useless. It is demolished now as 1st requested, but the long bureaucratic delay put it into the Great Recession.Had the owner has not been unreasonably delayed by "those that know best", then there would be an attractive development there today and the owner could be realizing the benefits of his land. Empty lot - nothing but dirt.

- 4) the beautiful contempoary design for a major new project was denied where Carolina Ale House is today. The DRB falsely claimed that building is "historic" - it went to court - the DRB lost. It was evident they used that excuse to stop a contemporary design. Now a bar, not a high-rise office.

Frankly, this DRB is bad for Greenville. It can/should be vastly improved. Ask anyone that goes before "those that know best" - or the staff. They aren't there to help.

Compliance with guidelines is one thing - but anal overreaching into minusha with subjective staff/politicians or whatever runs off good projects. Guidelines - yes. Help & assitance - yes. But no project "needs to be run off" - that's not the attitude we want here.

So which project did you have a financial stake in that caused this personal mission to disband the DRB?

I'm not seeing the evidence. Anyone who want to build in Greenville can, and will. If projects do not come to fruition, there's lots of factors that contribute (with financing and feasibility being large ones), not the size and scale of glazing or brick coursing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Can you provide examples of projects the DRB has run off?  Frankly, some projects need to be run off. "

 

Yes - 1) Mills Mill adjacent residential project was run off - owners submitted a great project in this transitional area, but denied b/c the plan had a security gate to the patrking lot - logical, desirable, good looking project. Not there - empty.

       -  2) the Gateway site where old auditorium used to be - had apartments planned by out-of-town developers - but with so many subjective revisions mandated, the project was killed. Compared to McBee Staion - much better. But still a hole.

      -   3) the mixed use project proposed at Main at River St. faced seemingly endless hurdles trying to force preservation of a building that was ultimately determined to be (just as the owner initially claimed) - old and useless. It is demolished now as 1st requested, but the long bureaucratic delay put it into the Great      Recession.Had the owner has not been unreasonably delayed by "those that know best", then there would be an attractive development there today and the owner could be realizing the benefits of his land. Empty lot - nothing but dirt.

     - 4) the beautiful contempoary design for a major new project was denied where Carolina Ale House is today. The DRB falsely claimed that building is "historic" - it went to court - the DRB lost. It was evident they used that excuse to stop a contemporary design. Now a bar, not a high-rise office.

 

Frankly, this DRB is bad for Greenville. It can/should be vastly improved. Ask anyone that goes before "those that know best" - or the staff. They aren't there to help.

Compliance with guidelines is one thing - but anal overreaching into minusha with subjective staff/politicians or whatever runs off good projects. Guidelines - yes. Help & assitance - yes. But no project "needs to be run off" - that's not the attitude we want here.

 

Most of the projects that you highlighted were not really run off. It was either bad timing or just did have anything to do with the DRB.

#1 or Mills Mills should not have been brought up.

#2 Was and is a difference of opinion. They could've stayed. But in a way they did. Because one of the partners in the group chose another company to work with. Look it up before you reply. And look they came back with something else. See how the process works.

#3 is self explanatory. We know what was going there. A lot of us, and not all, are probably saying thank goodness the recession occurred. Even some on city council agreed. Everyone is not gonna like it. Just like the first one.

And #4, well that one was never going to be any part of a high-rise. No I will take that back. It was going to be some convoluted, stylized entrance to the Peacock building, that what, NEVER MATERIALIZED, thank goodness they never tore that building down.

I agree that some projects were/are being micro- managed to an extreme that shouldn't be. But there are some that that do need to be.

Edited by MAJIKMAN

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1.  I thought this was approved, but with changes. It looked suburban and cookie-cutter that and did not in any way respect it's proximity to the architecture of the Mill itself. Frankly, I was glad it died.

2. The Gateway project was approved and then the APPLICANT requested a change, if how I remembered it.  Given how many times projects have died on that site, it is folly to blame the DRB.

3. The new project is significantly bigger than the prior one.  And the recession is what killed the first one, not the DRB.

4. There was never a plan to build a high rise on that site.     

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

About number 4, the was actually a plan for a high rise before the peacock and they wanted to tear the building down to make a plaza like entrance to that site.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your right btoy. I forgot about that. But either way that would have been nothing but an empty lot for s long time. Would not have been good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But getting back on subject. I was by the building this morning and noticed that those lights were not up there in the beginning. Now I see why the DRB said something. Hughes tried to pull a switch-a-roo. That was bad business.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Contractor said they sent plans to city 5 months before putting them up in normal course of construction. Owner required DRB approval  - contractor thought submission was ok after 5 months. And DRB approved all but a reallly cool clock feature - they want more info on it.

Contractor says it's not a billboard as feared - just an addition of a super cool clock. Hope to see it.

 

Lights have been up a long time = and they look great at night - what are you talking about??

The whole thing is a great addition - people love it, it's filling up fast w residents - perfect location and design - and so much better than a parking lot like before.

Plaza might be better as it grows in  - and city is late finishing their work. Overall, great additionHope News site will look as good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those lights were not there. The lights that were there were a series of enclosed lights leading up to a actual thing that looked like a clock. That's what I'm talking about. Reason I know. Because I commented on that to.

Look they did not go through the appropriate steps to do what they did. And got called out on it. There are repercussions of every action. These things are going to be rectified and will be remembered by everyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As of May 25th, only EIGHT apartments remain for lease out of 145 units.

Great to hear!

Any word on when they hope to get the Playwright open?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most of the interior design components were designed, built, imported, and installed by Irish craftsmen.

Edited by Skyliner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most of the interior design components were designed, built, imported, and installed by Irish craftsmen.

Oh, that's a fun fact! I'm looking forward to trying this place!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still several issues with the development.

 

1. The garage should have been made to be enclosed with brick. It was very poorly built to begin with. The paint was added after the city had to fight for it. 

2. The windows should have been tinted throughly. You can see right into peoples apartments. One day while walking past it, I saw a guy walking through his apartment with only a bath towel around him!

3. The light feature was never approved or in any drawings given to the city for the DRB...and this one looks like crap.

4. The retaining wall won't look right until the Hotel is built...which may never happen.

5. The patio area should have had trees put in for shading. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.