Greenville County Square redevelopment

[gman430]

The more I think about it the more I feel like going with the original plan would be for the best. All of the site plans and renderings which cost the county and developer lots of money have already been completed. Redoing these would cost them even more money. A lot of the vacant office space in the market would still be taken up just due to the state offices moving also.

 

[PuppiesandKittens]

Move the government offices to near the train station.

Sell the County Square site to private developers.

Then let the market decide.

And vote the government leaders who botched this out of office.

[gman430]

They should cancel the whole project and put a Walmart on site.

[PuppiesandKittens]

Walmart did propose a small-format store across Church Street from the site, and there was a Walmart (under a different name, but owned by Walmart) at Bell Tower Mall.

I'd be up for a Target.

[vicupstate]

3 hours ago, PuppiesandKittens said:

Move the government offices to near the train station.

Sell the County Square site to private developers.

Then let the market decide.

And vote the government leaders who botched this out of office.

They ARE selling it to a private developer, and the market will decide the tenants.  That is if they don't rook it up next week. 

West Washington is a lot more residential than you seem to realize. That land is already committed to affordable and workforce housing.   The acreage is pretty broken up by streets too.  There are better options.  

[PuppiesandKittens]

22 minutes ago, vicupstate said:

They ARE selling it to a private developer, and the market will decide the tenants.  That is if they don't rook it up next week. 

West Washington is a lot more residential than you seem to realize. That land is already committed to affordable and workforce housing.   The acreage is pretty broken up by streets too.  There are better options.  

The government needs to sell it to a private developer AND get out of the way.  That's not happening (yet), and that's the problem.

When government does things that it shouldn't, such as micro-managing a large real estate project, it screws it up.  (Just how many elected officials who are managing this process have experience with large real estate developments?)

This is example 145,394,393,239 of that.

There is plenty of land available to the west of Academy Street.  Government offices should go there.

[vicupstate]

What you are describing would not come close to paying for the replacement offices.  You get more revenue from selling multiple improved small parcels than one  unimproved large one. That is basic RE.  The day the new building opens the remainder becomes more valauble. 

There are not large 5-10 acre parcels  inside the city that would accomodate the 500k SF of offices we are talking here in close proximity to DT.  There is no guarantee they could be bought at a discount either.  The  new construction costs would be no cheaper on those sites.  

NONE of the SIX major national developers wanted a deal without County offices. and THEY have plenty of experience. 

[PuppiesandKittens]

1 hour ago, vicupstate said:

What you are describing would not come close to paying for the replacement offices.  You get more revenue from selling multiple improved small parcels than one  unimproved large one. That is basic RE.  The day the new building opens the remainder becomes more valauble. 

There are not large 5-10 acre parcels  inside the city that would accomodate the 500k SF of offices we are talking here in close proximity to DT.  There is no guarantee they could be bought at a discount either.  The  new construction costs would be no cheaper on those sites.  

NONE of the SIX major national developers wanted a deal without County offices. and THEY have plenty of experience. 

If you’re responding to me:

1. The parameters of the project, as offered to the developers that bid, included government offices on the site.  So of course they didn’t propose removing them.

2. There are plenty of sites to the west of downtown that could accommodate several hundred thousand sf of office space.  Land to the west of downtown is primarily low-rise and low-grade residential and commercial space.

There are plenty of lots available, although, as in many real estate deals, it could require assembling a few parcels and perhaps knocking down some low-grade buildings.

For example, go to maps.google.com and look up 600 West Washington Street, Greenville, SC, which is the post office. There's a large vacant lot across the street, and the map shows the very low density of development in the area.

3. I own real estate and have worked in the sector.  My family built a few buildings on South Main Street (admittedly a long time ago) and now owns a range of commercial properties in a few cities.  I'm not just an armchair commentator.

Edited May 18, 2019 by PuppiesandKittens

[gman430]

IF the county and state offices were to locate off site I would much rather have them go to current available space like Halton and Verdae instead of a new build. This would lower the office vacancy rate a lot and could lead to new office buildings getting built downtown. There’s plenty of office space currently available downtown also like in the Landmark building, ONE phase II, and BofA buildings. There will be even more once Camperdown is completed.

Edited May 19, 2019 by gman430

[PuppiesandKittens]

14 minutes ago, gman430 said:

IF the county and state offices were to locate off site I would much rather have them go to current available space like Halton and Verdae instead of a new build. This would lower the office vacancy rate a lot and could lead to new office buildings getting built downtown. There’s plenty of office space currently available downtown also like in the Landmark building, ONE phase II, and BofA buildings. There will be even more once Camperdown is completed.

That's a good point.  Perhaps the Landmark and BofA buildings could house government offices. At least the Landmark building is not one that an A-grade tenant would want.

[vicupstate]

16 hours ago, PuppiesandKittens said:

If you’re responding to me:

1. The parameters of the project, as offered to the developers that bid, included government offices on the site.  So of course they didn’t propose removing them.

2. There are plenty of sites to the west of downtown that could accommodate several hundred thousand sf of office space.  Land to the west of downtown is primarily low-rise and low-grade residential and commercial space.

There are plenty of lots available, although, as in many real estate deals, it could require assembling a few parcels and perhaps knocking down some low-grade buildings.

For example, go to maps.google.com and look up 600 West Washington Street, Greenville, SC, which is the post office. There's a large vacant lot across the street, and the map shows the very low density of development in the area.

3. I own real estate and have worked in the sector.  My family built a few buildings on South Main Street (admittedly a long time ago) and now owns a range of commercial properties in a few cities.  I'm not just an armchair commentator.

The example you give is already commited to affordable and workforce housing.  The city is by far the largest landowner in that corridor, and has pledged its holdings to housing.   To find 5-10 acres at a reasonable price the county is probably going to have to go to Pleasantburg, Laurens or lower Haywood Rd to place the state offices.  To include the County offices too, would make that an even stronger imperative. 

You could get 4+- acres at 711 W. Washington St. if you took the whole block, but that means multiple property owners have to sell, including a city councilor selling their residence. Plus at that small of a site, a garage would be a must.  You are probably looking at a 10 story building in the middle of a neighborhood with 80% single story homes.    

Remember if RocaPoint  isn't able to proceed,  County  Square remains as is for 10 years.   

[vistatiger]

21 hours ago, PuppiesandKittens said:

Walmart did propose a small-format store across Church Street from the site, and there was a Walmart (under a different name, but owned by Walmart) at Bell Tower Mall.

I'd be up for a Target.

Yes to a Target DT anywhere!

I think Woolco was the anchor at  Bell Tower which was a division of Woolworth's not Walmart.

[gman430]

Target is boring. We want Walmart.  Better yet, just put an IKEA on site. 

Edited May 19, 2019 by gman430

[PuppiesandKittens]

2 minutes ago, vistatiger said:

Yes to a Target DT anywhere!

I think Woolco was the anchor at  Bell Tower which was a division of Woolworth's not Walmart.

There was also an anchor on the east end of the mall that was owned by Walmart.  The store closed in 1979.

For vicupstate’s post:

1. There are skews of unused or underused lots west of downtown.  If a large building won’t fit one site, then smaller ones could be built.  The post office has been proposed as a development site, and there is land all along Academy, if vacant sites along Washington aren’t suitable.

2. If land has been pledged for a specific use, it doesn’t mean much.  Unfortunately  we’ve seen how good local government is at keeping its contractual obligations, and a pledge is weaker than a contract.  Pledges in this context are just vague “endeavors” anyway. Things change.

3. The County Square agreement has a noncompetition provision.  Not a no-development provision.  If the deal with Roca falls apart, then government will just work something else out with Roca.  There is no obligation not to do anything with the site for 10 years, and both parties are incentivized to do something to redevelop it.

[gman430]

If you want a new building, I say build a new high rise for county and state offices on the gateway site. 

[PuppiesandKittens]

4 minutes ago, gman430 said:

If you want a new building, I say build a new high rise for county and state offices on the gateway site. 

That’s a great idea.  Perhaps it would require building a very tall (by Greenville standards) building in order to offset the perhaps relatively high land cost, and combining the offices with another use.

[vicupstate]

2 hours ago, PuppiesandKittens said:

There was also an anchor on the east end of the mall that was owned by Walmart.  The store closed in 1979.

For vicupstate’s post:

1. There are skews of unused or underused lots west of downtown.  If a large building won’t fit one site, then smaller ones could be built.  The post office has been proposed as a development site, and there is land all along Academy, if vacant sites along Washington aren’t suitable.

2. If land has been pledged for a specific use, it doesn’t mean much.  Unfortunately  we’ve seen how good local government is at keeping its contractual obligations, and a pledge is weaker than a contract.  Pledges in this context are just vague “endeavors” anyway. Things change.

3. The County Square agreement has a noncompetition provision.  Not a no-development provision.  If the deal with Roca falls apart, then government will just work something else out with Roca.  There is no obligation not to do anything with the site for 10 years, and both parties are incentivized to do something to redevelop it.

If we were talking 3 years ago, I might somewhat agree. The  Cline property, the old  BB&T property, the Agfa  property would have all been possibilities.  Now however, they are in private hands that have development projects underway or in the works.  Buying up 25 parcels to form one 5 acre parcel, would take a lot of time and money. Just one or two holdouts could prevent it from happening.     

The Post Office was once mentioned as relocating years ago, but I have heard nothing since then. Obviously  it would have to wait on the Feds to move to new facilities. If building new Post offices is anything like building Federal courthouses, that would be quite a while.  Even so, it is only 3 acres by itself, so more parcels would be needed. 

There is NO way the city would backtrack on that pledge. There was a very vocal, diverse  and big coalition that supported  the city's recent efforts on the affordable housing front and their would be hell to pay if they turned their back on it.  BTW, the city plans to rezoned that whole  area too,  with height restrictions that would preclude   even a  mid-rise. The city  has a solid record of keeping its obligations.   

 

 

[PuppiesandKittens]

1 hour ago, vicupstate said:

If we were talking 3 years ago, I might somewhat agree. The  Cline property, the old  BB&T property, the Agfa  property would have all been possibilities.  Now however, they are in private hands that have development projects underway or in the works.  Buying up 25 parcels to form one 5 acre parcel, would take a lot of time and money. Just one or two holdouts could prevent it from happening.     

The Post Office was once mentioned as relocating years ago, but I have heard nothing since then. Obviously  it would have to wait on the Feds to move to new facilities. If building new Post offices is anything like building Federal courthouses, that would be quite a while.  Even so, it is only 3 acres by itself, so more parcels would be needed. 

There is NO way the city would backtrack on that pledge. There was a very vocal, diverse  and big coalition that supported  the city's recent efforts on the affordable housing front and their would be hell to pay if they turned their back on it.  BTW, the city plans to rezoned that whole  area too,  with height restrictions that would preclude   even a  mid-rise. The city  has a solid record of keeping its obligations.   

 

 

There are way more vacant and underused parcels of land along and to the west of Academy Street than just those few.

Nothing has happened to the derelict post office since nobody has proposed anything.  Perhaps now's the time to propose something for the site.

"There is NO way the city would backtrack on that pledge"- right. Just like the County Square contract is surely going to be followed to the letter.

"The city has a solid record of keeping its obligations"- right.  Just like County Square.  And just like City Council tried to find a way to get out of the city manager's contract recently.  And the city has been sued for breach of contract numerous times recently.

Further, the city has never stated, "every one of the following parcels of land will be used for affordable housing only:".  The city has made statements about using funds and land generally for affordable housing in general areas (and admittedly with some more specific promises).  Adding a government office into the mix of affordable housing developments would not violate any pledge.  The city may plan to rezone areas with height restrictions, but it hasn't done so yet.

I really think that the west side of downtown should be zoned to attract new large-scale development, particularly development that would create jobs and other benefits for people who live in the neighborhoods around the train station and further west. It's shameful that there is such poverty there, and jarring to see the high-end stores of Main Street but the poverty just a few blocks west.  It also seems so wasteful to be building new office space in distant suburbia when there is plenty of developable land within just a few blocks of Main Street.  Placing government offices there, particularly in a development that would encourage some private-sector investment, would be a good start to this.  

Edited May 19, 2019 by PuppiesandKittens

[Exile]

4 hours ago, PuppiesandKittens said:

There was also an anchor on the east end of the mall that was owned by Walmart.  The store closed in 1979.

Above the side-by-side grocery stores? It was called "Edward's". There may have been something  else there before or after, though. Excluding the theater, about 95% of my BTM experience was in Baskin Robbins; close to 5% in Woolco. I have only the foggiest memory of what it looked like inside the mall, or what other stores were there.

[PuppiesandKittens]

Just now, Exile said:

Above the side-by-side grocery stores? It was called "Edward's". There may have been something  else there before or after, though. Excluding the theater, about 95% of my BTM experience was in Baskin Robbins; close to 5% in Woolco. I have only the foggiest memory of what it looked like inside the mall, or what other stores were there.

You're correct.

Funny- we both seem to be from the same part of Greenville, have the same political views and also have identical experiences at Bell Tower Mall.  

From my recollection, Edward's was boarded up with a blue wooden wall by around 1980.   There was very little in the mall itself--at least very little that attracted my family.  I don't think anyone much spent time inside.  In my last trip there, all that was in the inside was BJ Music and a laundromat, and even the directory was falling off the wall, impossible to read.

[Exile]

6 hours ago, gman430 said:

If you want a new building, I say build a new high rise for county and state offices on the gateway site. 

I don't know.....I think there's potential there for something complementary to the arena (and here's to hoping an investor agrees with me). Government offices would not be that.

[cabelagent]

With all these ideas & scenarios, etc....my brain be like  

[PuppiesandKittens]

Yes and with all of these possibilities for relocating government offices, how did elected officials not make plans for them a long time ago?

[vicupstate]

Quote

 

There are way more vacant and underused parcels of land along and to the west of Academy Street than just those few.

 

No. There isn't. Please post some Tax Ids of these large vacant parcels. 

To assemble 2 acres for the QT, it involved about 13 parcels from at LEAST four different owners.  It costs between 3 and 4 million.  Prices have already escalated in the two years hence. Do the math and a 5-10 acre parcel is going to be more than half the budget, before you even start designing much less building a 250k SF buiilding.  

Quote

Nothing has happened to the derelict post office since nobody has proposed anything.  Perhaps now's the time to propose something for the site.

The Feds have to decide they want to move. Nobody is going to move the Feds off property they own but themselves. Once they even make that decision, they have to replace the facilities there. There is no way that happens quickly (see the Courthouse).  Even so, it is only 3 acres. 

 

Quote

"There is NO way the city would backtrack on that pledge"- right. Just like the County Square contract is surely going to be followed to the letter.

 City vs. County. Apple vs. Orange

 

Quote

"The city has a solid record of keeping its obligations"- right.  Just like County Square.  And just like City Council tried to find a way to get out of the city manager's contract recently.  And the city has been sued for breach of contract numerous times recently.

Again, City not County.   The city manager left of his own accord.   A contract dispute is not the same thing as a political decision that requires two public votes and has wide  political repurcussions.  
 

Quote

 

Further, the city has never stated, "every one of the following parcels of land will be used for affordable housing only:".  The city has made statements about using funds and land generally for affordable housing in general areas (and admittedly with some more specific promises). 

Adding a government office into the mix of affordable housing developments would not violate any pledge.  The city may plan to rezone areas with height restrictions, but it hasn't done so yet.

 

The city has specifically designated it's landholdings along Washington and near Unity Park for hosuing and height restriction are  also in the works.  

Quote

I really think that the west side of downtown should be zoned to attract new large-scale development, particularly development that would create jobs and other benefits for people who live in the neighborhoods around the train station and further west. It's shameful that there is such poverty there, and jarring to see the high-end stores of Main Street but the poverty just a few blocks west.  It also seems so wasteful to be building new office space in distant suburbia when there is plenty of developable land within just a few blocks of Main Street.  Placing government offices there, particularly in a development that would encourage some private-sector investment, would be a good start to this.  

Gentrification is well underway in this area, which is why the city is making the commitment to mitigate that.  Any wholesale change in that direction is not going to happen.   

[PuppiesandKittens]

vicupstate, there is plenty of underused or vacant land to the west of downtown.  Period.

Look at the density of the area compared to the core of downtown, or the core of basically any urban area.  The density is relatively low.  Yes, land to the west of downtown is owned by someone but all land in the US is owned by someone, so that's irrelevant.  Yes, there are buildings on much of the land, but almost all land in the city of Greenville has something on it, even a parking lot or a toolshed, so that's irrelevant.    The fact that this land is owned by someone and would need to assembled and redeveloped is not a point that I'm disagreeing with.

My point is that the land west of downtown is either vacant or has low-grade, low-density buildings on it that produce little in tax revenue and few opportunities for local residents.  That land to the west of downtown can and should be used for something better, just as land to the south of the core of downtown was underdeveloped until about 2000 and was turned into a better use. 

Moving government offices to that land, perhaps as part of a larger-scale development, could help spur improvements for the neighborhood, both for physical infrastructure and for opportunities for residents.  Yes, gentrification is happening, but there is so much dire poverty in that area that it needs further help.  See Woodside Avenue, which is really close to downtown: in 2013, it was ranked the 8th most dangerous area in the US (https://abcnews.go.com/Business/worst-neighborhoods-violent-crime-us/story?id=19087850) and despite gentrification and everything you point out, in 2018, it was ranked the 6th most dangerous area in the US (the article is online; I can't find it at the moment).

I'm certainly not a social scientist, and I dislike government generally, but having new construction, jobs and access to government services in the area would likely help.   (Yes, this would also require new efforts to protect low-income residents from being uprooted due to gentrification, but providing jobs and other opportunities would help in the long run.)

Edited May 20, 2019 by PuppiesandKittens