Jump to content

Rivers Edge


GvilleSC

Recommended Posts

If the DRB's contention is that 'what was approved, is not what was built', which is what I got from the article, then they definitely need to require a re-approval.  There seemed to be a miscommunication of some kind, but even so, there is no point in having a board if they can't enforce the approval process.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 284
  • Created
  • Last Reply

The article does not mention the building as a whole, but only a few elements that failed to meet the approved standard. In fact, the only questionable element directly connected to the building itself (mentioned in the article) is the LED board facing River Street. The other disappointing elements seem to be exclusively related to the plaza fronting the intersection of W. Broad and River. I agree with the DRB in this particular case. Unfortunately, the building itself is only slightly attractive on one side and completely bland otherwise, so the design standard was set quite low from the beginning.

 

I think the rather poor detailing on that side is for it will be hidden when the other building (or is that two buildings?) is built.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When is somebody going to push back on the DRB - Design Rejection Board.   It’s a good looking building and a great addition to downtown. They seem to reject everything!  I heard they turned down the Greenville News building too.   

I agree. I think the final project looks awesome. Who is on this DRB, a bunch of spoiled brats?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find it humorous that the DRB doesn't like the finished product here, yet approved crap like 98 E. McBee.

Can't forget about the Lofts next to Academy Street and RiverWalk. Talk about a baffling group of individuals. Personally I think the DRB should be disbanded for their stupidity and the approval authority should be given to city council or the planning commission but that's just me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the DRB has grown into an uncontrollable monster.  There are A LOT of small town across the country that would LOVE to have this kind of investment in their central business districts so why does the City make it more difficult for people to invest?!?!  I understand downtown Greenville was an absolute train wreck not more than 15-20 years ago and now it seems to me they their heads have gotten too big.  From what I've learned the DRB was instituted to prevent big purple fallace shaped buildings from being erected downtown - - not for giving a group of people the authority to spend other peoples money and reject approval of a project because a window sill is 4" too low.  That's how absurd it is - it's not hyperbole.  If I were Trammel Crow (or any other developer) I'd tell the city that we withdraw our plans and will go develop and invest money in another City.  I went and sat through a DRB meeting to see how the process works and I encourage everyone who has interest in this topic to do the same.  The comments made by the board can be jaw dropping at times.  Having design guidelines isn't a bad thing - but they have to be reasonable, clearly defined and not subject to what one board member thinks looks good.  City council, the Mayor, and city staff are no better.  I have friends back home who ask about Greenville all the time - and I can't brag enough - but as I learn more about the dysfunctional way the City does business I really start to worry about how long Greenville will stay this good!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oklahoma you're right about that if you can go to the meetings you should. But you should go and talk to your city council member representing you. I do. Most of the time they listen to your concerns. Probably the reason they brought up the issue with the plaza area, really more lack of sidewalks. I spoke of this earlier. Then it went to other things. We have a bigger voice than you think. Our request are considered. Within reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^^ The DRB is there to approve things based on a set of standards approved by the City. If you put something before the board, it will be judged accordingly. If you choose to alter those plans, you're breaching an agreement. This is being blown out of proportion with these sensational comments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Without a DRB, Greenville would have likely seen several hideous designs constructed within the last decade. More recently, the DRB has helped direct improvements to several project proposals, including phase one of River's Edge. Thank the DRB for not allowing this building to go up as it was originally designed and encouraging at least a few mildly attractive elements before giving their approval.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yea - that very 1st design was bad -   a placeholder by architects - looks great now - after the architects finished. But what hideous designs were prevented?? We lost growth due to design issues??

 

The world moves faster and faster - and bureaucracy slower and slower - and more subjective - not objective.

The more DRB gets into subjective details, the more slow / "marathon" meetings every project can expect at DRB - and they run off projects  - like Gateway, Mills Mill and Main at River St.

More than 1hotel wanted to go here, but no city support as other hotels are getting - so they left, too.

Careful what you hope for.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like I said before. For this one particular project, they didn't do what the plans for this project proposed. Period. This isn't for isn't anything else.

Further more. They agreed to it.

 

Without a DRB, Greenville would have likely seen several hideous designs constructed within the last decade. More recently, the DRB has helped direct improvements to several project proposals, including phase one of River's Edge. Thank the DRB for not allowing this building to go up as it was originally designed and encouraging at least a few mildly attractive elements before giving their approval.

 

 I agree wholeheartedly with both of the above.  The board is simply doing their job, and if a developer wants to put up anything they want, just because they want it, then they NEED to go elsewhere. We are not desperate and don't need or want to lower our reasonable standards. In this case, the developer supposedly did not do what they agreed to do, and most of the difference involves a PLAZA, not the actual building. Precedence will be set if the discrepancy is ignored.    

 

As far as hotels, the only 'support' they should be getting is publicly owned and operated parking where feasible(i.e. it will pay for itself).  There is no need for anything else.

 

If you think 98 E. McBee is bad as is, you should have seen the FIRST submission.  If there was no board, that is what we would have gotten

 

BTW, I have first hand experience with Columbia's board and I can assure you it is no different than here.  I have followed the Charleston BAR enough to know, they are much more stringent/detailed in their reviews.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"if a developer wants to put up anything they want, just because they want it, then they NEED to go elsewhere. We are not desperate and don't need or want to lower our reasonable standards."

 

Nobody is saying NO standards - but DRB runs off developments -  to satisfy their very personal preferences? Greenvile News site is still being denied - I understand they meet all written standards - DRB just doesn't let go.

DRB should look inward - to a city that occupies the ugliest building in town, allows it's rooftop to look like ugly electrical spagetti, won't bury overhead lines, and picks favored developments to fund w/o any transparency and refuses all others.

 

Wd did well before any DRB - Ogletree building, Hyatt, Poinsett Plaza, Bowater, etc etc - not too shabby - and just because they love Greenville.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"if a developer wants to put up anything they want, just because they want it, then they NEED to go elsewhere. We are not desperate and don't need or want to lower our reasonable standards."

 

Nobody is saying NO standards - but DRB runs off developments -  to satisfy their very personal preferences? Greenvile News site is still being denied - I understand they meet all written standards - DRB just doesn't let go.

DRB should look inward - to a city that occupies the ugliest building in town, allows it's rooftop to look like ugly electrical spagetti, won't bury overhead lines, and picks favored developments to fund w/o any transparency and refuses all others.

 

Wd did well before any DRB - Ogletree building, Hyatt, Poinsett Plaza, Bowater, etc etc - not too shabby - and just because they love Greenville.

 

Poinsett Plaza is owned by the city...so, the city was still involved...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Poinsett Plaza is owned by the city...so, the city was still involved..."

 

Incorrect-

 

But the point is that before any DRB, great buildings were developed - it's not impossible w/o a DRB - most developers make great imporovements - and the balance is being lost. W claer, basic guidelines, any DRB should HELP - not delay / run off people who want to improve our community.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, Greenville is the ONLY city in SC that does have a program to bury power lines. I'm sure if you provided more funds, they would do even more.  The developers that are supposedly getting 'run off' would find the same situation anywhere else they went. 

 

There are some good pre-board buildings but there are some bad ones too. Given the location of Camperdown, there is every reason to hold it to a high standard. The most recent submission of the Greenville News building was bland on the upper floors IMO, which is what the  board said.  Aesthetics are always going subjective, so there will always be disagreement on what does and doesn't get approved. Welcome to the real world.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Poinsett Plaza is owned by the city...so, the city was still involved..."

 

Incorrect-

 

But the point is that before any DRB, great buildings were developed - it's not impossible w/o a DRB - most developers make great imporovements - and the balance is being lost. W claer, basic guidelines, any DRB should HELP - not delay / run off people who want to improve our community.

 

With my internship with he city, I mapped all parcels owned by the city...That square is owned by the city. They also own the one in front of the old County courthouse, the first 50x50 ft across the street at the corner of Broad and Main and pretty much everything in front the Courtyard Marriott. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those building before DRB still look great - great then w/o DRB - great now.

And DRB HAS run off projects as mentioned. Power corrupts. Absolute power.....

 

And check your GIS - you are not correct - Poinsett Plaza is private / not city - sorry about that internship. You sound like you work there now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those building before DRB still look great - great then w/o DRB - great now.

And DRB HAS run off projects as mentioned. Power corrupts. Absolute power.....

 

And check your GIS - you are not correct - Poinsett Plaza is private / not city - sorry about that internship. You sound like you work there now.

 

I do not work there now, but I do remember under the city's list of parcels. Always found it funny the city hall is 4 parcels...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those building before DRB still look great - great then w/o DRB - great now.

And DRB HAS run off projects as mentioned. Power corrupts. Absolute power.....

 

And check your GIS - you are not correct - Poinsett Plaza is private / not city - sorry about that internship. You sound like you work there now.

 

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree wholeheartedly with both of the above.  The board is simply doing their job, and if a developer wants to put up anything they want, just because they want it, then they NEED to go elsewhere. We are not desperate and don't need or want to lower our reasonable standards. In this case, the developer supposedly did not do what they agreed to do, and most of the difference involves a PLAZA, not the actual building. Precedence will be set if the discrepancy is ignored.    

 

As far as hotels, the only 'support' they should be getting is publicly owned and operated parking where feasible(i.e. it will pay for itself).  There is no need for anything else.

 

If you think 98 E. McBee is bad as is, you should have seen the FIRST submission.  If there was no board, that is what we would have gotten

 

BTW, I have first hand experience with Columbia's board and I can assure you it is no different than here.  I have followed the Charleston BAR enough to know, they are much more stringent/detailed in their reviews.

Public funding may not be a problem if the city wasn't spending $20mm on maintenance sheds to relocate public works. Why is no one more outraged about this?! Based on their current footprint that is $200/sf....for shade and shelter!!! Come on! It can be built for half that. Take the money saved and build another public garage in the west end to feed that growth. And raise city rates to closer to $80/space/month. There is PLENTY of demand. I'd be willing to bet more quality development would follow. Perhaps even spec office product if it could be parked this way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

  • 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.