gman430 Posted March 8, 2016 Report Share Posted March 8, 2016 RFP for redevelopment of site which will be mixed use and include a new office building for county offices slated to go out in May of this year. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gman430 Posted April 2, 2016 Author Report Share Posted April 2, 2016 The county had a meeting about this March 28th. Anybody know anything? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ausrutherford Posted April 3, 2016 Report Share Posted April 3, 2016 Hope they following the Clemson plan closely if not better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vicupstate Posted April 3, 2016 Report Share Posted April 3, 2016 3 minutes ago, ausrutherford said: Hope they following the Clemson plan closely if not better. What does the Clemson plan call for? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gman430 Posted April 3, 2016 Author Report Share Posted April 3, 2016 (edited) 27 minutes ago, vicupstate said: What does the Clemson plan call for? I'm hearing the new county offices will be 10-15 stories tall. Subject to change of course. http://upstatebusinessjournal.com/news/future-county-square/ Clemson’s 10-year-old MRED program is one of only nine or 10 such programs in the country. The two-year, full-time graduate program offers a joint degree between Clemson’s architectural and business schools with project-based curriculum that graduates can apply in the working world. The winning presentation from MRED team Palmetto Property Partners – called The Gallery at Falls Park – proposed the integration of a new six-story, 300,000 square-foot county office building with an additional 1 million square feet of strategically placed mixed-use development along a new network of streets and sidewalks. Edited April 3, 2016 by gman430 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ausrutherford Posted April 3, 2016 Report Share Posted April 3, 2016 16 minutes ago, gman430 said: I'm hearing the new county offices will be 10-15 stories tall. Subject to change of course. http://upstatebusinessjournal.com/news/future-county-square/ Clemson’s 10-year-old MRED program is one of only nine or 10 such programs in the country. The two-year, full-time graduate program offers a joint degree between Clemson’s architectural and business schools with project-based curriculum that graduates can apply in the working world. The winning presentation from MRED team Palmetto Property Partners – called The Gallery at Falls Park – proposed the integration of a new six-story, 300,000 square-foot county office building with an additional 1 million square feet of strategically placed mixed-use development along a new network of streets and sidewalks. Interesting considering the PD for this area is only suppose to allow 6 stories... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gman430 Posted April 3, 2016 Author Report Share Posted April 3, 2016 15 minutes ago, ausrutherford said: Interesting considering the PD for this area is only suppose to allow 6 stories... There's always exceptions to things like how the ONE phase II building has no Main Street setback. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ausrutherford Posted April 3, 2016 Report Share Posted April 3, 2016 7 minutes ago, gman430 said: There's always exceptions to things like how the ONE phase II building has no Main Street setback. True. Any word on if the Health department building will be in on the deal? It needs to go... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vicupstate Posted April 3, 2016 Report Share Posted April 3, 2016 They are suppose to 'update' the Haynie-Sirrine master plan when they were starting the South Ridge project, but nothing ever happened. Six stories is WAY too restrictive for that site. There isn't a house within 1,000 feet of where the county building would go. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mallguy Posted April 17, 2016 Report Share Posted April 17, 2016 Today's Greenville News reports that the county is hiring a consultant to evaluate space needs at the County Square site, and that portions of the site that won't be needed due to a more compact government building being developed can be sold for at least $18MM. That's good, but the government is also saying that the site should be used for low-income housing. That's exactly what the site should NOT be used for (since downtown needs lots of people with incomes to thrive, not lots of people without incomes), and the government should not squander taxpayers' money by offloading the site at less than fair market value. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vicupstate Posted April 17, 2016 Report Share Posted April 17, 2016 1 hour ago, mallguy said: Today's Greenville News reports that the county is hiring a consultant to evaluate space needs at the County Square site, and that portions of the site that won't be needed due to a more compact government building being developed can be sold for at least $18MM. That's good, but the government is also saying that the site should be used for low-income housing. That's exactly what the site should NOT be used for (since downtown needs lots of people with incomes to thrive, not lots of people without incomes), and the government should not squander taxpayers' money by offloading the site at less than fair market value. The article quotes a state rep and a city councilwoman. This is county property and I don't expect the county council to do anything other than sell to the highest bidder or most financially beneficial long-term proposal. What is more disturbing is that the county councilman wants the county to keep as much as 10 acres. That is way too much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gman430 Posted April 17, 2016 Author Report Share Posted April 17, 2016 38 minutes ago, vicupstate said: The article quotes a state rep and a city councilwoman. This is county property and I don't expect the county council to do anything other than sell to the highest bidder or most financially beneficial long-term proposal. What is more disturbing is that the county councilman wants the county to keep as much as 10 acres. That is way too much. That's just a guess on his part. I doubt it will take up 10 acres with them going vertical and using a parking garage. The less land they use for county offices=more land they can sell. This in turn would lead to more money in the county coffers. The council members know this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ausrutherford Posted April 17, 2016 Report Share Posted April 17, 2016 (edited) 2 hours ago, mallguy said: Today's Greenville News reports that the county is hiring a consultant to evaluate space needs at the County Square site, and that portions of the site that won't be needed due to a more compact government building being developed can be sold for at least $18MM. That's good, but the government is also saying that the site should be used for low-income housing. That's exactly what the site should NOT be used for (since downtown needs lots of people with incomes to thrive, not lots of people without incomes), and the government should not squander taxpayers' money by offloading the site at less than fair market value. You don't understand affordable housing. Its about making sure that people are able to live near where they work. There are 100s of people that work downtown that can not afford to live downtown at current prices. Janitors and other service employees can't afford the rents to live down there even though they are essential for downtown to be maintained. Also, without affordable housing mixed-in, you force people with low-incomes to live concentrated together somewhere else. That promotes crime, lowers land values. All of the housing would not be affordable. It would be mixed in with normal housing options. The best environment for affordable housing is to be mixed in so it is not concentrated all in one place. This is why housing projects like the Scott Towers (across the US in fact) failed. The city's consultant on affordable housing for downtown is suppose to issue its report this summer, so expect some movement on this end after in council. Edited April 17, 2016 by ausrutherford Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mallguy Posted April 17, 2016 Report Share Posted April 17, 2016 50 minutes ago, ausrutherford said: You don't understand affordable housing. Its about making sure that people are able to live near where they work. There are 100s of people that work downtown that can not afford to live downtown at current prices. Janitors and other service employees can't afford the rents to live down there even though they are essential for downtown to be maintained. Also, without affordable housing mixed-in, you force people with low-incomes to live concentrated together somewhere else. That promotes crime, lowers land values. All of the housing would not be affordable. It would be mixed in with normal housing options. The best environment for affordable housing is to be mixed in so it is not concentrated all in one place. This is why housing projects like the Scott Towers (across the US in fact) failed. The city's consultant on affordable housing for downtown is suppose to issue its report this summer, so expect some movement on this end after in council. Excuse you? I most certainly understand affordable housing. The Greenville News article clearly stated that the goal would be to have people who work downtown be able to live near downtown. I've lived in an apartment building before that, as per government requirements, was 80/20 (80% market-rate, where I lived, and 20% below-market rate, which was the affordable housing component). Have you? You're the one with the comprehension issue, so don't project your own lack of understanding on others. Having a high density of residents with disposable incomes nearby is key to any commercial area's success. Greenville's downtown has that on its east side, but not on its west side, and so downtown Greenville has done well recently despite being in an iffy demographic area. It is critical for the future growth of downtown to continue to expand its population base of people with disposable incomes. If it does, then additional attractive stores and restaurants will come downtown, and employers will continue to locate there. If it does not, then they will not. Greenville is small enough that for the government to insist that a large block of developable land downtown be used for affordable housing (in part or in whole) on the basis of providing access to downtown is silly, anyhow; if County Square is developed to add affordable housing, what would be a 10-minute commute downtown (which is minimal) for people who live in low-income areas near downtown already would be maybe 5 minutes. The minimal time savings for affordable housing residents' commutes to downtown would have little if any impact on their access to downtown. A better approach would be to let the market decide what gets built at County Square, without any government interference whatsoever, and if accessibility for low-income people to downtown is deemed insufficient, the government could actually invest in public transportation. We've seen the mess that Charlotte has made at the Eastland Mall site due to idiotic government social engineering and lack of business sense. Greenville must not make that same mistake. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edgar Posted April 17, 2016 Report Share Posted April 17, 2016 4 hours ago, vicupstate said: What is more disturbing is that the county councilman wants the county to keep as much as 10 acres. That is way too much. Besides government offices, County Square also houses Greenville County EMS, who use their space as administrative offices (management, billing, HR, etc.) as well as a headquarters for their field operations, central deployment base, and dispatch center. Whichever way the project goes, it would have to take into account the space needed for the ambulances, which may eventually translate to them keeping some surface parking. Currently, ambulances can be seen parked near the bay doors at the northwest corner of the building, off Howe St. Still, 10 acres does seems like way too much for the county to keep, so it will be interesting to see how this all plays out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ausrutherford Posted April 17, 2016 Report Share Posted April 17, 2016 2 hours ago, mallguy said: Excuse you? I most certainly understand affordable housing. The Greenville News article clearly stated that the goal would be to have people who work downtown be able to live near downtown. I've lived in an apartment building before that, as per government requirements, was 80/20 (80% market-rate, where I lived, and 20% below-market rate, which was the affordable housing component). Have you? You're the one with the comprehension issue, so don't project your own lack of understanding on others. Having a high density of residents with disposable incomes nearby is key to any commercial area's success. Greenville's downtown has that on its east side, but not on its west side, and so downtown Greenville has done well recently despite being in an iffy demographic area. It is critical for the future growth of downtown to continue to expand its population base of people with disposable incomes. If it does, then additional attractive stores and restaurants will come downtown, and employers will continue to locate there. If it does not, then they will not. Greenville is small enough that for the government to insist that a large block of developable land downtown be used for affordable housing (in part or in whole) on the basis of providing access to downtown is silly, anyhow; if County Square is developed to add affordable housing, what would be a 10-minute commute downtown (which is minimal) for people who live in low-income areas near downtown already would be maybe 5 minutes. The minimal time savings for affordable housing residents' commutes to downtown would have little if any impact on their access to downtown. A better approach would be to let the market decide what gets built at County Square, without any government interference whatsoever, and if accessibility for low-income people to downtown is deemed insufficient, the government could actually invest in public transportation. We've seen the mess that Charlotte has made at the Eastland Mall site due to idiotic government social engineering and lack of business sense. Greenville must not make that same mistake. The entire area wouldn't be affordable housing. Only a certain percentage that would be mixed in. And yes, affordable housing is becoming a problem with those that are 5-minutes away feeling development pressure. And the point of affordable housing is to ensure that those if them have more disposable income. If they were forced to live father away, they would have less due to transportation costs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mallguy Posted April 17, 2016 Report Share Posted April 17, 2016 (edited) 13 minutes ago, ausrutherford said: The entire area wouldn't be affordable housing. Only a certain percentage that would be mixed in. And yes, affordable housing is becoming a problem with those that are 5-minutes away feeling development pressure. And the point of affordable housing is to ensure that those if them have more disposable income. If they were forced to live father away, they would have less due to transportation costs. Again, you don't understand. Both the Greenville News and I clearly and repeatedly stated that the area could be "in part" affordable housing. So simply repeating back to me what the Greenville News and I clearly stated serves no purpose. So what is the purpose of your post then, other than to show that your reading comprehension skills are poor? Further, no reputable proponent of affordable housing has ever stated that the goal is to give people more disposable income; the goal is almost always to ensure that people with low incomes have access to jobs in high-rent areas. Again, again, again: you don't understand. Edited April 17, 2016 by mallguy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vicupstate Posted April 17, 2016 Report Share Posted April 17, 2016 Mallguy, you are being condescending, please keep it in check. This might be an opportunity to increase the number of residential units allowed provided the ADDITIONAL units are affordable, and the already allowed units would be market rate. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mallguy Posted April 17, 2016 Report Share Posted April 17, 2016 (edited) ausrutherford should not have made a libelous statement (that I "do not understand" something, when in fact I do, and very well). He has a habit of constantly accusing people of not understanding things, when the issue is that his posts do not reflect well-thought and informative statements. His habit is called "projection": reflecting your own issues on others. There is already plenty of "affordable" (aka "low-income") housing around the County Square site, and we should be thrilled that finally we have non-low-income housing being built downtown in the past 10-15 years, perhaps for the first time since around 1900. Edited April 17, 2016 by mallguy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vicupstate Posted April 17, 2016 Report Share Posted April 17, 2016 Whatever ausrutherford did, you more than doubled down on. Stop making this personal and stick to meaningful discussion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ausrutherford Posted April 17, 2016 Report Share Posted April 17, 2016 I don't mean to do anything and I'm sorry it came off that way. I am just merely stating that the city is very serious at all levels about it affordable housing issue. Going forward, it will be something to consider. That means it will likely be considered for County Square (and should be). Lower income areas are feeling a lot of pressure, and that can not be escaped from as downtown continues to grow in the future. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gman430 Posted April 17, 2016 Author Report Share Posted April 17, 2016 They should build a Walmart on site. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ausrutherford Posted April 17, 2016 Report Share Posted April 17, 2016 31 minutes ago, gman430 said: They should build a Walmart on site. Wouldn't mind it if it looked like this: 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mallguy Posted April 18, 2016 Report Share Posted April 18, 2016 Apology accepted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gman430 Posted April 18, 2016 Author Report Share Posted April 18, 2016 1 hour ago, ausrutherford said: Wouldn't mind it if it looked like this: No you've got it all wrong. It needs to be more like this with a huge parking lot in front: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.