Greenville County Square redevelopment

[vicupstate]

There may be an issue with the older space getting backfilled, but the new space seems to get absorbed as it is built or more likely not built until it is largely spoken for.   As for BB&T, I don't see that being too difficult to fill. It has its own garage, and they got the building pretty cheap.  The apartments were going to be below new construction pricing, so I imagine the office space will  be too.  In other words, newly renovated but cheaper than brand new Class A would be.  I also suspect they had a commitment or two in hand before making a change of use for that much space. 

Also, you have to realize we have 300-400k  sf being taken out of the inventory this year. [Verdae, Halton Rd. etc ]  

    

[gman430]

None of the office space at Canvas has been spoken for yet. All 130,000 square feet is currently for lease through CBRE. 

[GvilleSC]

13 minutes ago, vicupstate said:

 

Also, you have to realize we have 300-400k  sf being taken out of the inventory this year. [Verdae, Halton Rd. etc ]  

    

Not specifically related to your comment above, but I have a general question about submarkets and they affect one another. I'm hoping one of you in commercial real estate can help out:

I understand that they're all interconnected to an extent, and you need the entire market to be healthy. However, I've always assumed that absorbing suburban office space will likely only produce more suburban office space. My theory being that having Halton Road taken off the listings isn't going to produce a high rise downtown. They're at different price points and there's lots of variables (such as parking or the type of businesses) that likely are going to prevent someone from looking at space in an office park off of Woodruff Road while simultaneously touring space in downtown Greenville. Am I wrong, or what do you find with clients who are shopping space?

I would propose BB&T moving their offices to Mauldin as a case study.

[gman430]

And here we go: https://gsabusiness.com/news/real-estate-commercial/76902/

“This is one the largest Class A office transactions in Greenville’s history,” Taylor Allen, brokerage associate in Colliers’ Greenville office, said in the release. “The square footage of this transaction is more than the total absorption in the market over the last four years combined.”

Edited August 12, 2019 by gman430

[gman430]

Greenville News article on County Square: https://www.greenvilleonline.com/story/news/2019/08/12/greenville-sc-mayor-knox-white-says-county-square-project-needs-affordable-housing/1953269001/

To date, the city and county have worked out compromises on more than 100 of roughly 120 staff concerns noted on the project's 429-page rezoning application. These range from traffic improvements the county will pay for all over downtown to the project's design guidelines and who will enforce them (in this case, city staff instead of the powerful design review board).

Edited August 12, 2019 by gman430

[gman430]

NA.

Edited August 14, 2019 by gman430

[gman430]

Butch Kirven makes a very valid point: https://www.greenvilleonline.com/story/opinion/2019/08/17/opinion-why-move-goalposts-greenvilles-county-square-project/2028616001/ Why does this need affordable housing when other projects literally right next door don’t have it? I like Knox White but I think he is barking up the wrong tree here. Luckily he doesn’t work for the planning commission so he doesn’t have a say whether this project moves forward or not with affordable housing. 

Edited August 18, 2019 by gman430

[vicupstate]

Quote

Luckily he doesn’t work for the planning commission so he doesn’t have a say whether this project moves forward or not with affordable housing. 

He certainly does.  City Council must approve the changes. Planning Commission is only a recommendation. 

I see both sides of this argument.  To Kirven's point, prior projects have not been of this magnitude. Also McClaren will have a workforce housing component.  I do see that the point is to maximize return to pay for all the improvements required.  Perhaps a compromise is to capture a portion of the the revenue stream once the improvements are paid for, as a recurring revenue source for affordable housing. 

The alternative will be to have these pots of money set aside for affordable housing be used to subside units at county square itself. 

[gman430]

52 minutes ago, vicupstate said:

He certainly does.  City Council must approve the changes. Planning Commission is only a recommendation. 

I see both sides of this argument.  To Kirven's point, prior projects have not been of this magnitude. Also McClaren will have a workforce housing component.  I do see that the point is to maximize return to pay for all the improvements required.  Perhaps a compromise is to capture a portion of the the revenue stream once the improvements are paid for, as a recurring revenue source for affordable housing. 

The alternative will be to have these pots of money set aside for affordable housing be used to subside units at county square itself. 

Are you sure? I thought it was only the planning commission that has to approve it. At least that’s what it seems like from everything I have seen and heard.

 

Edit: This quote from a recent G-News article definitely makes it sound like only the planning commission has to approve it and not the city council also: 

"Whatever plan gets through in the county discussion, this eventually goes to the city planning commission," White said. "And I want everyone to know that we have very independent and very smart people on our planning commission. They are a really good group, and they'll be the final judge of the PD."

Edited August 18, 2019 by gman430

[vicupstate]

^^

From the article that Butch Kirven wrote:

After 14 months of diligent work, the county, the city and the county’s developer partner have reached an agreement in principle which, when approved by the Planning Commission and City Council, will allow actual work to begin on the project. 

At the meeting it was stated that PC would get it in September an Council in October.  I believe Council has to approve everything that goes to Planning  Commission.  

[PuppiesandKittens]

13 hours ago, gman430 said:

Butch Kirven makes a very valid point: https://www.greenvilleonline.com/story/opinion/2019/08/17/opinion-why-move-goalposts-greenvilles-county-square-project/2028616001/ Why does this need affordable housing when other projects literally right next door don’t have it? I like Knox White but I think he is barking up the wrong tree here...

Agreed.  There are plenty of sites within walking distance of the downtown core where affordable housing could be added. Allegedly prime real estate shouldn't be used for it.

[apaladin]

11 minutes ago, PuppiesandKittens said:

Agreed.  There are plenty of sites within walking distance of the downtown core where affordable housing could be added. Allegedly prime real estate shouldn't be used for it.

DITTO!! No sense in throwing a monkey wrench in at this late date. That could be a deal breaker. 

[gman]

Why would any developer want to get involved in a project that involves so many different entities with different agendas? 

[gman430]

14 minutes ago, gman said:

Why would any developer want to get involved in a project that involves so many different entities with different agendas? 

I’m surprised RocaPoint hasn’t pulled out yet with all of this crap going on like we saw with Cousins at ONE and Trammell Crow at Camperdown. Knox White needs to take a vacation and needs to stop trying to kill economic development projects. 

Edited August 19, 2019 by gman430

[GvilleSC]

12 minutes ago, gman said:

Why would any developer want to get involved in a project that involves so many different entities with different agendas? 

Because they stand to make a small fortune on their plans for the site. 

[GvilleSC]

23 minutes ago, gman430 said:

I’m surprised RocaPoint hasn’t pulled out yet with all of the crap going on. Knox White needs to take a vacation. 

I don't understand the knee jerk reactions to the affordable housing issue. I don't think it's going to hold up this project, and there's lots of ways to integrate such an idea across the site. For example: why not strike a deal to grant the developer additional FAR/height if they include 10% of the units at below market rate? 

Edited August 19, 2019 by GvilleSC

[gman430]

8 minutes ago, GvilleSC said:

I don't understand the knee jerk reactions to the affordable housing issue. I don't think it's going to hold up this project, and there's lots of ways to integrate such an idea across the site. For example: why not strike a deal to grant the developer additional FAR/height if they include 10% of the units at below market rate? 

The knee jerk reaction is due to the fact it might put this project getting built in jeopardy. Once again, why does this project need affordable housing when others downtown don’t have it? I don’t see Camperdown with any affordable housing unless a $1.6 million condo is now considered affordable. It’s not fair for RocaPoint. 

Edited August 19, 2019 by gman430

[GvilleSC]

1 minute ago, gman430 said:

The knee jerk reaction is due to the fact it might put this project getting built in jeopardy. Why does this project need it when others downtown don’t have it? I don’t see Camperdown with any affordable housing. It’s not fair for RocaPoint. 

Well, for one, Camperdown isn't built on previously public-owned land. We do see provisions governing affordable housing around the new Unity Park, and that is (and will be) affecting various developers and land owners. 

[gman430]

13 minutes ago, GvilleSC said:

Well, for one, Camperdown isn't built on previously public-owned land. We do see provisions governing affordable housing around the new Unity Park, and that is (and will be) affecting various developers and land owners. 

I don’t see why that matters. The city doesn’t even own it. The county does. It’s not like the site currently has affordable housing on it also. 

Edited August 19, 2019 by gman430

[johnpro318]

12 minutes ago, gman430 said:

The knee jerk reaction is due to the fact it might put this project getting built in jeopardy. Once again, why does this project need affordable housing when others downtown don’t have it? I don’t see Camperdown with any affordable housing unless a $1.6 million condo is now considered affordable. It’s not fair for RocaPoint. 

Maybe our zoning for the city should be updated to require a percentage of “affordable” housing with perks of going above and beyond? Additional FAR/height, reduced parking requirements if located near transit (bus stop), etc? It is 2019 after all. Many cities require this now. 

[vicupstate]

1 hour ago, gman said:

Why would any developer want to get involved in a project that involves so many different entities with different agendas? 

Most projects of this size are no different.  Once they get this approval, they will not need any approvals beyond the staff level. That is not typical by any means, so that is an advantage down the road. 

This is not a last minute request either, it has been voiced for some time.  I don't think it is necessary to include affordable/workforce in this project but it isn't beyond reason either. They just need to hammer out the details and work the numbers to see if or how it can be done. 

Charleston has done many things to get affordable housing in a very expensive and gentrifying areas, including this one: 

Quote

For example: why not strike a deal to grant the developer additional FAR/height if they include 10% of the units at below market rate? 

There is no need to reinvent the wheel. They just need to get down to brass tacks and get an agreement.

Frankly, I think the city needs to sit down with David Stone and have a broad ranging discussion on how to develop his land in a way that addresses the affordable housing shortage with literally everything on the table.  Go very high on density, let the city pay for creating open space, be open to suspending any regulation on parking, setbacks, etc. (within reason), and just about anything else.   He has a massive amount of proeprty in the core that is ideal for bus and other transit. It is largely isolated from existing neighborhoods, which should limit NIMBYism to some extent.  It is a once in a century opportunity, IMO.  If done right, it could make a massive difference in the housing problem and even serve as a national model.       

 

[StrangeCock]

"Well that other development didn't have affordable housing, so why should we?" is exactly how you get an affordable housing crisis. You have to be bold and tackle the problem at some point, or it will become a crisis, then it will be too late to do anything about it.

"We'll deal with it with the next project" is basically the "free beer tomorrow" sign of developer arguments.

[ausrutherford]

On 8/19/2019 at 9:30 AM, gman430 said:

The knee jerk reaction is due to the fact it might put this project getting built in jeopardy. Once again, why does this project need affordable housing when others downtown don’t have it? I don’t see Camperdown with any affordable housing unless a $1.6 million condo is now considered affordable. It’s not fair for RocaPoint. 

1. The vast majority of the other projects are not in PDs.

2. This development will put huge pressure on the area with more gentrification. 

I would say that given the size of the project, there is no reason why they can't squeeze in some affordable housing. 

 

[olrob]

OK,  I get that affordable housing is important...gentrification and all that. What I'm wondering (as a member of the 99%) if they make the project 10 %  "affordable housing", how do I get in on that action? I can't afford to live Downtown, but maybe with "affordable housing" I have a shot. I probably make too much to qualify for "affordable housing" but not REMOTELY enough for the high end housing.  What if I quit my current job and take a minimum wage job? Problem is even if I qualify, won't there be a huge demand relative to supply? How do you get picked? I would LOVE to live Downtown, but I'm afraid if I downscale and don't get picked for one of the prime Downtown locations, I'll be stuck in section 8 housing in Easley or something. I'm kinda kidding but the people who get affordable housing downtown seems like they hit the lottery. Not saying it's wrong but unfortunately there won't be enough to accommodate everyone who wants to move DT.

[GVLover]

18 minutes ago, olrob said:

OK,  I get that affordable housing is important...gentrification and all that. What I'm wondering (as a member of the 99%) if they make the project 10 %  "affordable housing", how do I get in on that action? I can't afford to live Downtown, but maybe with "affordable housing" I have a shot. I probably make too much to qualify for "affordable housing" but not REMOTELY enough for the high end housing.  What if I quit my current job and take a minimum wage job? Problem is even if I qualify, won't there be a huge demand relative to supply? How do you get picked? I would LOVE to live Downtown, but I'm afraid if I downscale and don't get picked for one of the prime Downtown locations, I'll be stuck in section 8 housing in Easley or something. I'm kinda kidding but the people who get affordable housing downtown seems like they hit the lottery. Not saying it's wrong but unfortunately there won't be enough to accommodate everyone who wants to move DT.

The funny thing is, in many cases, it’s an actual lottery. You’re placed on a list and people are randomly selected. It can take years to be selected and of course there are income restrictions.