gman

Camperdown (Greenville News Building Site)

Recommended Posts

Actually, the jury awarded more than even the owners were asking for. It seemed quite a shock at the time. I can't remember exactly, but it was over $10mm as I recall.  That could have gone a long way toward building a park.  

 

These buildings are not too big to move, but they may not be economically feasible to move.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


I see the movie theater location is now nearer to Broad Street and extends under the upper portion of the plaza.

This development plan still fails to address (capitalize on) its park/river frontage. Does it make sense to build a blank wall and parking garage adjacent to a destination for pedestrian activity? Why not add retail or vendor space along the ground level?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see the movie theater location is now nearer to Broad Street and extends under the upper portion of the plaza.

This development plan still fails to address (capitalize on) its park/river frontage. Does it make sense to build a blank wall and parking garage adjacent to a destination for pedestrian activity? Why not add retail or vendor space along the ground level?

 

There really isn't as much pedestrian activity on THAT side of the river compared to the other one, plus there would be no drive-by views.  The larger office building and condos will have views of the river. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't repeat this enough: we need more traditional architecture in these developments.

 

What's in vogue today won't be in vogue in 15 years, and using "trendy" architecture, given all of the new construction downtown, will result in a skanky looking downtown soon, once they're out of style.  Look at the existing Greenville News building: it and the Daniel/Landmark building were stylish when built, but they were eyesores within 15 years.

 

There are plenty of architectural styles that have lasted hundreds of years.  We should have more buildings using those styles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't repeat this enough: we need more traditional architecture in these developments.

 

What's in vogue today won't be in vogue in 15 years, and using "trendy" architecture, given all of the new construction downtown, will result in a skanky looking downtown soon, once they're out of style.  Look at the existing Greenville News building: it and the Daniel/Landmark building were stylish when built, but they were eyesores within 15 years.

 

There are plenty of architectural styles that have lasted hundreds of years.  We should have more buildings using those styles.

Examples?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The DRB did not approve the office building and has asked the developers to go back to the drawing board. Construction slated to start in July 2015 if approval is given next go around in May. This is when the hotel will go up for potential approval also. CAP and Trammell Crow are on a very tight and fast schedule.

Edited by gman430

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Gville news link i posted was of the updated proposal based on the feedback they received. I still like the depth the original (posted a page back) gave to the building.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree the Greenville News design was ugly, but I kind of liked the design with the protruding windows.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's nice to see the DRB showing some appropriate muscle. This entire development will be judged on the human experience and connections to the street. It will be interesting to see what they present in May.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There really isn't as much pedestrian activity on THAT side of the river compared to the other one, plus there would be no drive-by views. The larger office building and condos will have views of the river.

Thank goodness that mindset was not prevalent among the majority of city leaders over the last few decades. RiverPlace would look much different today without pedestrian-oriented retail space along the waterfront - much of which can't be seen clearly from a car. Falls Park on the Reedy would have remained a dream and Fluor Field would still be a collection of old warehouses. The point is, while THAT side of the river may not attract the same number of pedestrians on average today, the city is steadily growing and eventually THAT side of the river could be as busy as the western side is today. Just consider the growth potential along the streets of East Broad and Falls. Two sizable residential projects are currently under development along those same streets and others will be on the way shortly thereafter. The number of people accessing Falls Park and the SRT from that side of the river will grow exponentially when the new residents move in.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank goodness that mindset was not prevalent among the majority of city leaders over the last few decades. RiverPlace would look much different today without pedestrian-oriented retail space along the waterfront - much of which can't be seen clearly from a car. Falls Park on the Reedy would have remained a dream and Fluor Field would still be a collection of old warehouses. The point is, while THAT side of the river may not attract the same number of pedestrians on average today, the city is steadily growing and eventually THAT side of the river could be as busy as the western side is today. Just consider the growth potential along the streets of East Broad and Falls. Two sizable residential projects are currently under development along those same streets and others will be on the way shortly thereafter. The number of people accessing Falls Park and the SRT from that side of the river will grow exponentially when the new residents move in.

Apples and oranges. Riverplace is quite visible when crossing the Main St. bridge.  When you cross the pedestrian bridge, there is nothing there to keep pedestrian interest. Most people turn back and return the way they came.  If the Bowater garage was not there, something at that site could provide that.  Alternatively if something is built on the large parking lots/ abandoned post office buildings on Falls and Calvin Streets, that would fill that purpose.  The short distance of shops this project could provide would lead to a dead end until then.  Until that is changed, I don't think your idea would be viable.

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