gman430

Greenville County Square redevelopment

79 posts in this topic

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 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


The county had a meeting about this March 28th. Anybody know anything? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hope they following the Clemson plan closely if not better. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, ausrutherford said:

Hope they following the Clemson plan closely if not better. 

What does the Clemson plan call for?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (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 by gman430

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


  • 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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (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 by ausrutherford

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (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 by mallguy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (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 by mallguy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whatever ausrutherford did, you more than doubled down on. Stop making this personal and stick to meaningful discussion.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They should build a Walmart on site. :D 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, gman430 said:

They should build a Walmart on site. :D 

Wouldn't mind it if it looked like this:

Walmart-H-Street-WDC-McMahon.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ausrutherford said:

Wouldn't mind it if it looked like this:

Walmart-H-Street-WDC-McMahon.png

No you've got it all wrong. It needs to be more like this with a huge parking lot in front: 

Exterior_Entrance_Of_Walmart_Carrefour_L

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.