Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
gman430

CONSTRUCTION THREAD: Gateway Lofts.

32 posts in this topic


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?

Edited by Skyliner
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While some elements might not get approved by the DRB, I don't see this one dying due to the developer being in negotiation with the city over the past two years trying to find a compromise.

Edited by gman430

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was told the city told them to send it back to the design stage. They want any development to tie better into the river and into the Kroc Center. In other words, they didn't like it facing Academy. Also, the surface parking was an issue, as expected. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I knew that would happen. This thing may not happen. Boom! That's as is anyway.

Edited by MAJIKMAN
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And the application for next month's meeting is still horrendous and has surface parking. Is this just the same submittal? I hope this goes the way of the Pinnacle.

Share this post


Link to post
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?

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Edited by gman430
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
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)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

See page 29, side elevation E. I guess that is what they are considering a parking garage??? haha

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

See page 29, side elevation E. I guess that is what they are considering a parking garage??? haha

 

Might help with the link... ;)

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Edited by MAJIKMAN

Share this post


Link to post
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.    

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It won't be approved going by what Ive heard the DRB told them. 

 

Good!  Because it shouldn't be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Board doesn't want the site's development to tie to Academy, but to the Kroc Center and the river instead. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Board doesn't want the site's development to tie to Academy, but to the Kroc Center and the river instead. 

I think it needs to integrate with both.

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
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.