Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
gman430

Greenville County Square redevelopment

166 posts in this topic

Nice post, NBNY. This right here:   "I do not think that particular property is the right space for low income or controlled cost housing."

This parcel is very unique. Looking at a map, it appears that is roughly one quarter the size of the current downtown area alone. This development will shape the future of Greenville. I agree with what was said above. Density, planning of a proper mixed use, and quality / timeless construction.Controlled cost housing is needed, but can be developed in so many other areas. 

I hope the county becomes very actively involved with the development beyond the scope of their current concerns involving the future county building and parking situation. Measure twice and cut once. Greenville will not get another chance to make such a big impact, at one time, anytime in the foreseeable future. 

Edited by FUgrad02

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


I agree- great posts, NBNY and FUgrad02.  Greenville should focus on affordable housing, in places EDITED TO UPDATE near jobs,* and really should be doing a lot more to improve the lives of the underprivileged.  I don't know quite how Greenville ranks in terms of inequality and opportunities for the underprivileged (and the abilities of underprivileged persons to rise to higher-income brackets), but Charlotte and Atlanta get very low marks on both, so I'm guessing that Greenville is similar.

Perhaps the county could set aside a portion of the proceeds of the sale of the County Square site to fund mass transit, housing and economic development initiatives.

I stand behind my assertion that in a discussion that has nothing to do with race, attributing an undesirable characteristic to a race of people (jumping to equate low-income with being of color) is racist. 

* Places for low-income housing should be near where jobs are.  Does downtown have a lot of lower-income jobs?  Or are lower-income jobs elsewhere?  Wherever they are, there should be housing, and public transportation should be improved significantly so that underprivileged persons should have commutes that are convenient for them.

Edited by mallguy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everyone is basically rehashing the same points. But essentially the market will determine what's going to be built and where, with maybe a couple of exceptions. Like with the city of Greenville buying property around downtown for the main purpose of affordable and work force housing. So just because people don't hear about those kinds of things, please don't assume they aren't happening. And by the way everyone isn't going to want to be in downtown proper. Being a mile or even two away is more than close enough. That's where public transportation comes in. Being honest that is where the focus should be. Normally land cost justify that kind of development. And that puts at least 95% of people who want to live close to downtown someplace to live. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great point, Majikman.

Greenville's public transportation should be vastly increased in size, and not just local bus lines: there should be more intercity passenger trains along the I-85 corridor.  In Greenville, if you don't have a car, it's really tough to get around, and the only realistic option for intercity transportation is Greyhound (I'd guess; the once-a-day night train doesn't really sufficiently serve the market).  This void harms the working poor more than the rest of us.

Edited by mallguy
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"County officials say they prefer the county headquarters to remain on the County Square property but they are willing to consider another site with city limits."

Anyone of an idea on where else the county headquarters would be a good fit? 

 

“The county encourages creative thinking to achieve a stunning, vibrant mixed-use development with architectural and urban design quality fitting to this extraordinary location and capable of attracting significant investment to and around the site....County officials say in the RFP that they might use tax incentives to participate in the building of “necessary public infrastructure improvements.”

I like this quote

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would think a developer would want to have the County there as a 'tenant' to kick start the project. 

However, if someone wanted to put the county elsewhere, here are some of my ideas:

* Calvin/Webster block

* West Washington Street between Academy and the Amtrack station

* The Main Post Office site. At one point there was discussion of them moving.  

* Agfa building 

The Pete Hollis/ Buncombe/Rutherford corridor presents some opportunities as well, such as:

* Cline property 

* BB&T surface lots and building. Their building is pretty dated and they have already moved some offices to ONE. 

* The Academy-Buncombe-Hampton-Duncan block owned by James Woodside

However, my preference would be for not only the County stay at County Square but that the School Board move there as well.  They could share meeting chambers since both bodies have 12 members.  Just add a floor or two for GCSB.  That would free up several acres of very valuable land for development and taxation at the GCSB's current location.  It would also add value to County Square by bring more workers to the site.  

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


County wouldn't just kick start it but it would help make sure there is plenty of daytime population, both from employees and all the traffic the county offices generate from the public, to attract retailers.  The county would make a great anchor to the development and should help ensure that the project is successful.  

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The County wants to stay so if they do would they not have to have a building with height? At least 10-15 stories?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, apaladin said:

The County wants to stay so if they do would they not have to have a building with height? At least 10-15 stories?

Depends a lot on the floor plate size. TWO Washington St. is 20,000 SF per floor, so that would be 12-13 floors. if the plate was 30,000 SF, for example, it would be about 8 floors.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/26/2017 at 4:54 PM, vicupstate said:

Depends a lot on the floor plate size. TWO Washington St. is 20,000 SF per floor, so that would be 12-13 floors. if the plate was 30,000 SF, for example, it would be about 8 floors.   

Their current facility is 290,000 SF. This might be around 10 to 14 floors. That would be great on that hill. My only concern is I would hope for a least a couple more buildings in the 10 story range to balance it out. That's why I kind of don't like the Windstream and Liberty buildings. They just stand alone. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is 290k in the current complex but the RRP requests 250k.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


28 minutes ago, vicupstate said:

There is 290k in the current complex but the RRP requests 250k.   

Probably to get rid of the wasted "mall"-like areas that wouldn't be needed anymore. 

Share this post


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

Probably to get rid of the wasted "mall"-like areas that wouldn't be needed anymore. 

True. I just thought it would equal out (get rid of wasted space and add more for future needs). Is the 250k with or without the services in the buildings across the street?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, johnpro318 said:

True. I just thought it would equal out (get rid of wasted space and add more for future needs). Is the 250k with or without the services in the buildings across the street?

probably without. that thing is a massive waste of space

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

8 to 12 years??? Really disappointing if true. Heck the I-85/I-385 interchange is only taking 3 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, apaladin said:

8 to 12 years??? Really disappointing if true. Heck the I-85/I-385 interchange is only taking 3 years.

Apples and Oranges. One is market-driven and one is physics driven. 30 acres is a lot of land and it could certainly be shorter than that. if the demand is there to do so.

BTW, Riverplace took at least eight years and is a small fraction of the size of County Square, not to mention waterfront.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heck, Riverplace still isn't done. Wasn't it started around 2005 or so? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, apaladin said:

8 to 12 years??? Really disappointing if true. Heck the I-85/I-385 interchange is only taking 3 years.

Actually right on average for most large scale developments. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heck, they've been working on the new federal courthouse for 18 years and it hasn't even broken ground yet.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, distortedlogic said:

Heck, they've been working on the new federal courthouse for 18 years and it hasn't even broken ground yet.

:rofl: 

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.