Jump to content

CONSTRUCTION THREAD: Gateway Lofts.


gman430

Recommended Posts


  • Replies 31
  • Created
  • Last Reply
That design reminds me of project housing. It would be an enormous waste of valuable real estate to construct such a lousy, short-sighted plan.

The file submitted for review gives little information about the proposal itself, but includes numerous pages filled with photos of various unrelated places in downtown. Are the developers hoping the DRB will become distracted as they gawk at images of Falls Park and One City Plaza? Why didn't they include more photos of RiverPlace, especially considering it would be in the same neighborhood near the riverfront and SRT?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
  • 1 month later...

The design still looks very boring, but I don't see how this is different from any of the other bland, boxy architecture that has been approved recently.  The layout of the surface parking looks horrible, and doesn't meet the city requirements for spacing and size of planting islands, but are we going to complain if the city doesn't enforce their guidelines here, when they've given other recent projects a pass?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


The design still looks very boring, but I don't see how this is different from any of the other bland, boxy architecture that has been approved recently. The layout of the surface parking looks horrible, and doesn't meet the city requirements for spacing and size of planting islands, but are we going to complain if the city doesn't enforce their guidelines here, when they've given other recent projects a pass?

Which other projects?

My beef is w the surface parking and site design. I don't mind the actual look of the building.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which other projects?

My beef is w the surface parking and site design. I don't mind the actual look of the building.

The 6 story building @ Main & River St clearly in violation of the West End height restrictions.  The assisted living project on Augusta given a variance to have 100% of its parking facing the street, instead of being in the rear as required, just to name a couple of recently approved ones. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 6 story building @ Main & River St clearly in violation of the West End height restrictions. The assisted living project on Augusta given a variance to have 100% of its parking facing the street, instead of being in the rear as required, just to name a couple of recently approved ones.

You'll live. Oh and I love the Main at River Street proposal. :dontknow: Go figure. Personally, I wouldn't even have a problem with a 40+ story building in the West End but that's just me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought it said that a parking garage was to be included????

 Thats what the public notice states :dontknow::

 

CA 14-360 CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS application by Arlington Properties to construct a 4 story apartment with 5 detached carriage units and parking garage( total of 215 units) located at Westfield and Academy Streets ( TMS# 0071000100500; 0071000100301; 0071000100300 and 0071000102700)

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Here is the link for it.  http://www.greenvillesc.gov/PlanningZoning/PlanningApplications/Applications/2015/FEBRUARY/DesignReviewBoard/02-05-2015/CA-14-360-WestfieldandAcademy.pdf They must have put the wrong plans up for review on the city's planning site. Because the one up for review for 2/5 specifically says 56 garage spaces/284 surface spaces. I'm gonna say that this has to be a mistake.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the Parking Garage is the 'enclosed, single car' variety that you might find in a suburban apartment complex, not a parking garage like in South Ridge, etc.. You pay extra rent to get one that you have a key to.    

 

That's what I was thinking. If that was/is the case. They didn't change a thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Well, this has been deferred yet again. It should go before the Board in March now. Hopefully they put a significantly improved proposal together.

 

It shouldv'e been. They didn't change anything. But I'm like you. I hope they scrape this particular way of thinking. 'Cause a parking lot, as they invision, is not gonna work. 

Anyone notice the updated rendering from UBJ aticle? Doesn't look like surface parking lot, but maybe they just didn't render it in.

 

http://upstatebusinessjournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/DTGreenvilleLofts.jpg

 

The parking lot wasn't included.

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.