Jump to content

Greenville County Square redevelopment


gman430

Recommended Posts

19 minutes ago, NewlyUpstate said:

Definitely not anywhere close to dead. As I said before, sounds like most of the back and forth is on the value of the Fluor offices.  They need to get a 3rd party independent assessment of the value and then I'm sure they will get the votes they need. Krenell rushing to pay $33 million for those vacant offices is a little eyebrow raising in my opinion.

Sounds like someone may be getting a kickback, you think? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


So am I to believe that not only did the County fail to adequately anticipate the need to accommodate state offices, but so did the state and the developers, in a competitive bidding process?

Why is this only coming up now? Somebody cooking trout?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, vicupstate said:

It is not really the state's responsibility. The county knew of its obligations, but for some unexplained reason has not properly addressed it yet.  

 

So....there were ZERO plans to accommodate state agencies with original plans?  This is very poor planning if that's the situation...

Edited by cabelagent
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doubt it will fall through,  but I would be ok if it did as planned. It will happen in some form, but I have been very disappointed with the suburban office park site plans we've seen. It would be nice if they'd replan and make better accommodation for the state, and make this a city within a city instead of what they currently have planned. Just me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no inside info. but this is my estimation of what has transpired. The county has known all along it needed to move the state offices but it has taken this long to get the three options identified and priced out. They probably didn't do much work on this aspect until the developer was selected. The state offices are probaby not included in the new project itself because the county has no incentive to provide any more than minimally adequate.  They will spend on themselves but not the atate 'hangers-on'.  I question if or if not, why not, an RFP was not issued for this. 

They may need to just lease temp space for te Family Court so they can buy time to build or buy something elsewhere. 

It definitely isn't dead but their will be a lot of moving parts with a deal like this and hitting a snafu this early is concerning. Directing county council is like herding cats and they can be penny wie and dollar foolish sometimes.      

 

 

3 minutes ago, distortedlogic said:

Doubt it will fall through,  but I would be ok if it did as planned. It will happen in some form, but I have been very disappointed with the suburban office park site plans we've seen. It would be nice if they'd replan and make better accommodation for the state, and make this a city within a city instead of what they currently have planned. Just me.

This is by no means a suburban office park as it is currently planned. Garage parking not surface, parks, many uses including lots of residential. Just because it isn't full of skyscrapers does not make it a surburban office park.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Spero said:

It's weird that nobody is explaining why they're offering $13mil more than it's probably worth. The focus on the need to act fast only compounds my suspicion.

Agreed, as a council member said in the article posted yesterday: it’s ok to make a profit, but $13m more is a lot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Spero said:

It's weird that nobody is explaining why they're offering $13mil more than it's probably worth. The focus on the need to act fast only compounds my suspicion.

Yeah, this whole thing seems a bit fishy to me. Even if the project dies, the ‘no’ vote was the right way to go in my opinion. I would have voted the same way if I were a council member. 

4 minutes ago, vicupstate said:

The price they are being asked to pay is about $152 a SF.  How would that compare to new construction for a no-frills office building?

 

Wow, that is ridiculous. Camperdown is $33.50 per square foot for their office space lease for comparison.

Edited by gman430
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, gman430 said:

Yeah, this whole thing seems a bit fishy to me. Even if the project dies, the ‘no’ vote was the right way to go in my opinion. I would have voted the same way if I were a council member. 

Wow, that is ridiculous. Camperdown is $33.50 per square foot for their office space lease for comparison.

$152 @ SF is to BUY it, not LEASE it, which is what Camperdown is quoting. Five years of leasing at Camperdown would buy Halton Rd. outright.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The County needs to just buy time with a temporary location for Family Court and then just go back to the drawing board. 

There are at least a couple of Pleasantburg locations that could work well if new construction were an option. The Poinsett corridor land across from the Domino's might work too, if new construction were  within reasonable costs.   A bufget conscoius but attractive new 250k SF office building there would be a nice boost for what they are trying to do there. The county already owns the land. There is a hitch  though in that the land would have to be annexed which mean contiguity would have to be established. That would not be easy., but there ought to be a way to achieve it.   

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, vicupstate said:

$152 @ SF is to BUY it, not LEASE it, which is what Camperdown is quoting. Five years of leasing at Camperdown would buy Halton Rd. outright.

Then why not just build a new office building on the County Square site for the state offices or make the current proposed one for county offices twice as tall and include the state ones there? 

Edited by gman430
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, gman430 said:

Then why not just build a new office building on the County Square site for the state offices or make the current proposed one for county offices twice as tall and include the state ones there? 

 My earlier comment applies:    The state offices are probaby not included in the new project itself because the county has no incentive to provide any more than minimally adequate.

The County Square building housing the county offices is being funded by the developer, and they wouldn't want to invest even more to house the state offices. Likewise the county is only interested in minimally adequate, not high grade new construction in a premium location.  At least that is my take on it.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, motonenterprises said:

This sort of applies to this topic. Some cities are consolidated city-county. Would being consolidated help are hurt this situation? The city seems to get stuff done, but the county is hit and miss.

I doubt it... We'd just end up with the same county politicians on the new council, and less focus having such a large area to manage.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, motonenterprises said:

This sort of applies to this topic. Some cities are consolidated city-county. Would being consolidated help are hurt this situation? The city seems to get stuff done, but the county is hit and miss.

It really comes down to competence of the people serving rather than the structure they work within.  Some consolidated govenments like Nashville, Denver, Indianapolis  seem to do very well. Yet Jacksonville is poorly managed and decades behind its peers despite consolidation. Several unconsolidated cities do just fine and others struggle.   

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • 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.