Greenville County Square redevelopment

[gman430]

15 minutes ago, gvegascple said:

so when they dont build a 20 story building here, because they wont, the economy wont support it, will we still get stuck with higher taxes?  This just seems like a scam to me.  

The economy actually might be able to support it especially if Fluor wants to move back downtown or Chartspan wants to move to nicer digs. There’s a 16 story office building getting built at Camperdown currently. If the economy can support that, no reason it couldn’t support this. 

Edited December 13, 2019 by gman430

[gvegascple]

it just seems like everyone is height crazy around here.  Willing to give away the city for the chance at a tall building.  Especially when we have a perfect place for height already, downtown, along with the Camperdown and the rest of our tall ones.  I like a city growing initially out of a concentrated core.  It makes it easier to scale things like public transportation which we will need a better answer for pretty soon.  Putting tall buildings scattered around will be problematic for traffic and this spot is going to start bleeding into residential.

Edited December 13, 2019 by gvegascple

[gman430]

16 minutes ago, gvegascple said:

it just seems like everyone is height crazy around here.  Willing to give away the city for the chance at a tall building.  Especially when we have a perfect place for height already, downtown, along with the Camperdown and the rest of our tall ones.  I like a city growing initially out of a concentrated core.  It makes it easier to scale things like public transportation which we will need a better answer for pretty soon.  Putting tall buildings scattered around will be problematic for traffic and this spot is going to start bleeding into residential.

This site IS downtown and part of the CBD.  How is it not? It’s literally a quarter mile as the crow flies from Camperdown which is home to tallish buildings. It’s not like the site is 20 miles away in Fountain Inn.

Edited December 13, 2019 by gman430

[distortedlogic]

1 hour ago, gvegascple said:

I actually want higher than 12 downtown, I even said lets go for 30.  But in the downtown core, not here.  Wouldnt putting a 20 story building here essentially be putting the BOA headquarters on the site? What you are saying seems to conflict with what you are suggesting.  Lets put the tall ones in our urban core, leave this site to 12, seems more than reasonable.  only one benefiting going to 20 on this site is the developer, lets think about whats best for greenville instead.

"Wouldnt putting a 20 story building here essentially be putting the BOA headquarters on the site?"    - No, not at all IMO. Again, a 20 story building is not that tall in reality, and development has come down South Main and Augusta with other buildings. Plus, any 20 story would be surounded by a whole development of buildings stepping down from 8-12, 4-8, and 2-4; so it would be fine. 

For Bold: Fair points/questions but...

1 hour ago, btoy said:

That's the thing though, this isn't outside the urban core any long.  If you look at the downtown master plans this is very much part of the core.

... this is how I was going to respond. I don't see this as outside the urban core anymore at all. I think this is already part of the urban core (and has been for a decade now) and this development will fill a gap within the urban core. Just across Chruch from this development is a whole stretch of appts, restaurants, and retail (North Ridge?) that go up to six stories. Behind that is more new appts, and the redone Brio Condos that is like 6 stories. The other side of county square is a rapidly growing Augusta/West End field area with lots of new developments and proposals for multi story development. This is where it's at and we need to think about doing this site the right way as we consider Greenville for the coming decades. 

 

[gvegascple]

a twenty story building isnt that tall? I love that everyone is so optimistic and wants tall buildings everywhere.  We are going to actually need tenants for these places.  Unless we attract more businesses into the spaces we have, we arent going to be filling these buildings that everyone wants.   I suppose having 2 20 story buildings for every potential business will be one way to attract companies...

[gman430]

4 minutes ago, gvegascple said:

a twenty story building isnt that tall? I love that everyone is so optimistic and wants tall buildings everywhere.  We are going to actually need tenants for these places.  Unless we attract more businesses into the spaces we have, we arent going to be filling these buildings that everyone wants.   I suppose having 2 20 story buildings for every potential business will be one way to attract companies...

In my opinion it’s not. If the developer wanted a 40 story building on site, I wouldn’t have an issue with it. Also, these 20 story buildings don’t have to be office space. Could be a hotel, condos, apartments or mixture of them all.

Edited December 13, 2019 by gman430

[gvegascple]

 

7 minutes ago, gman430 said:

In my opinion it’s not. If the developer wanted a 40 story building on site, I wouldn’t have an issue with it. Also, these 20 story buildings don’t have to be office space. Could be a hotel, condos, apartments or mixture of them all.

Right, we'd need tenants for any of these.   I just dont think we are at a place to start dropping 20 and 40 story buildings everywhere.   I get that I am overwhelmingly in the minority on this.  It would be exciting and I love seeing construction cranes but we arent there yet.  One day sure, but just because one day, doesnt mean now.  Organic growth is growth is not forced.

Edited December 13, 2019 by gvegascple

[distortedlogic]

7 minutes ago, gvegascple said:

a twenty story building isnt that tall? I love that everyone is so optimistic and wants tall buildings everywhere.  We are going to actually need tenants for these places.  Unless we attract more businesses into the spaces we have, we arent going to be filling these buildings that everyone wants.   I suppose having 2 20 story buildings for every potential business will be one way to attract companies...

Not in my opinion. As I said, several recent developments could have easily been 20 or more if developers had wanted them that way. One is 3 buildings totaling 35-40 stories. Camperdown is going to be 4 totaling 42-44. Several of the sprawling appt/condo projects with hundreds of units could have easily been 20 or more. We just seem to have a total aversion to any height around here. 

3 minutes ago, gman430 said:

In my opinion it’s not. If the developer wanted a 40 story building on site, I wouldn’t have an issue with it. Also, these 20 story buildings don’t have to be office space. Could be a hotel, condos, apartments or mixture of them all.

This!

[gvegascple]

1 hour ago, gman430 said:

This site IS downtown and part of the CBD.  How is it not? It’s literally a quarter mile as the crow flies from Camperdown which is home to tallish buildings. It’s not like the site is 20 miles away in Fountain Inn.

A quarter mile is a huge pain in butt if you are trying to develop a subway or trolley.  initially, if everyone was concentrated to main, we could hit the density to merit decent transportation options that we could reasonably accommodate because the solution would be relatively simple straight line type of thing, then you branch out.

Ok, I am going to shut up now.  I hope we get everything everyone wants with no ill effects.  

Ok, I will shut up after this last point.  Lets say we go ahead and grant the 20 stories.  The developer then does nothing because the market does not meet the need to merit financing for such a structure.  Now we have a valuable and expensive vacant lot.  One no one with moderate plans can afford to build on. And we get a vacant lot to stare at for five or ten years when we could have had a well planned, cohesive development. 

Edited December 13, 2019 by gvegascple

[distortedlogic]

1 hour ago, gvegascple said:

A quarter mile is a huge pain in butt if you are trying to develop a subway or trolley.  initially, if everyone was concentrated to main, we could hit the density to merit decent transportation options that we could reasonably accommodate because the solution would be relatively simple straight line type of thing, then you branch out.

Ok, I am going to shut up now.  I hope we get everything everyone wants with no ill effects.  

Ok, I will shut up after this last point.  Lets say we go ahead and grant the 20 stories.  The developer then does nothing because the market does not meet the need to merit financing for such a structure.  Now we have a valuable and expensive vacant lot.  One no one with moderate plans can afford to build on. And we get a vacant lot to stare at for five or ten years when we could have had a well planned, cohesive development. 

No need to shut up, it's a good discussion! 

" initially, if everyone was concentrated to main, we could hit the density to merit decent transportation options that we could reasonably accommodate because the solution would be relatively simple straight line type of thing, then you branch out." - Ok, I think this is what has already happened. Back in the 70s with Max Heller, the focus stated with main st. The idea was to make it the backbone of a new downtown. For decades, they did just that, and it worked beautifully. Now, over the past 1 5 years, we've started to see that branch out. Now major developments are going in on Markley St, and Spring, and  Academy, and Broad, etc.  Not to mention the West End. What you just said has already happened and we are in the branching out period. This is a major, major peice that not every downtown gets to take a shot at. 

 

"And we get a vacant lot to stare at for five or ten years when we could have had a well planned, cohesive development." I seriously doubt that would happen but even if it does that may not be a bad thing. 5-10 years is the blink of an eye. This development is most likely going to be around for generations - it needs to be done correctly (ie, in the best way for Greenville), not because I want height, but becasue it makes Greenville a better built and functional downtown.  A low rise (sprawled) development here would not seem to make the best use of this land that is almost a one time opportunity. Low-rise sprawl will result in further sprawl and gentrification sooner down the line because the development was not built to it's best potential. We need to think long term here, not just in the now or 5-10 year range. What will the project do for Greenville over the life of the development? Plan it that way and we're much more likely to get a "well planned, cohesive development" that will be best for Greenville, regardless of what we want today. 

 

 

[vicupstate]

I have lived here since 1996 and I can tell you , no one, I mean no one, would have thought the DT we see today was a possibility in 1996.  There is  no way to  know what the demand for housing, offices and retail at  County Square  10 or even 5 years from now will be.      

[gman430]

Can't believe the city is about to let $1.5 billion ($1.1 billion at County Square and $400 million at the museum/conference center) in economic development downtown die over eight stories. Humans. 

[apaladin]

48 minutes ago, gman430 said:

Can't believe the city is about to let $1.5 billion ($1.1 billion at County Square and $400 million at the museum/conference center) in economic development downtown die over eight stories. Humans. 

Yeppers, amazing what power a few naysayers can have on politicians. Would have been an amazing development, not to mention the museum convention center, but oh well. This site wiil probably eventually get developed in the distant future but unfortunately many of us won't live long enough to see it, including yours truly. 

Edited December 14, 2019 by apaladin

[gman430]

1 hour ago, apaladin said:

Yeppers, amazing what power a few naysayers can have on politicians. Would have been an amazing development but oh well. This site wiil probably eventually get developed in the distant future but unfortunately many of us won't live long enough to see it, including yours truly. 

I agree. Can't forget about the 250,000 square feet of office space on Halton Road that will be put back on the market also. Hopefully in the end they put a Walmart on the county square site with a big parking lot in front. That would give these NIMBY's pure justice. Oh and if the High Table was involved, this wouldn't be a problem. Neither the residents, city council, or county council could stop it then. Remember to pay your fealty. 

Edited December 14, 2019 by gman430

[vicupstate]

9 hours ago, apaladin said:

Yeppers, amazing what power a few naysayers can have on politicians. Would have been an amazing development, not to mention the museum convention center, but oh well. This site wiil probably eventually get developed in the distant future but unfortunately many of us won't live long enough to see it, including yours truly. 

Wow.  Talk about a total lack of self-awareness. 

[vicupstate]

As far as 'affordable housing' goes,  a pretty strong argument can be made that the problem will get worse by NOT allowing a 20 story building to go here.  If the market can support a  20 story building but it has to reduce the total SF because it can't be over 12 stories, you have effectively reduced the supply without reducing the demand.  Anytime you do that. you increase the price of that comodity., whether it is residential or office or whatever.     

[gvegascple]

I hope I didnt come off as a naysayer.  I was just trying to run down the opposing side of things (which my wife loves let me tell you).  I dont think its fair to say that someone questioning the potential impact of things as being short sighted or negative either.  I still think progress if left to developers without guardrails is a bad idea.  I also think that if the projects mentioned are good for the city, they will happen one way or another.  So hows that for optimism?  I know its not wrapped up in lets build build build higher higher higher who cares if there is demand, but still, optimistic :-)

Edited December 16, 2019 by gvegascple

[distortedlogic]

1 hour ago, gvegascple said:

I hope I didnt come off as a naysayer.  I was just trying to run down the opposing side of things (which my wife loves let me tell you).  I dont think its fair to say that someone questioning the potential impact of things as being short sighted or negative either.  I still think progress if left to developers without guardrails is a bad idea.  I also think that if the projects mentioned are good for the city, they will happen one way or another.  So hows that for optimism?  I know its not wrapped up in lets build build build higher higher higher who cares if there is demand, but still, optimistic :-)

This is where you lost me. I don't think a single person on this forum has advocated for that position in any way, and I don't think any of us would truly want empty wasted projects that would negatively affect Greenville's development, no matter how bad we want a highrise.  You may want to reread some of our posts, as many of us have already given rational reasons why taller buildings for certain projects would make sense and even be healthier for Greenville's development in the long run. 

[gvegascple]

28 minutes ago, distortedlogic said:

This is where you lost me. I don't think a single person on this forum has advocated for that position in any way, and I don't think any of us would truly want empty wasted projects that would negatively affect Greenville's development, no matter how bad we want a highrise.  You may want to reread some of our posts, as many of us have already given rational reasons why taller buildings for certain projects would make sense and even be healthier for Greenville's development in the long run. 

It might be because height shaming seems to be a thing here.  If you are not for it, you are seen as not having vision, etc.   Especially when I have actually advocated for height and still just get the how about more height responses and how zoning limits today are seen as written in stone impediments to the future of Greenville for the rest of time.  I am pretty sure zoning is modified over time as changes are needed.   It just seems a bit weird to me. Just a vibe i get i suppose :-)

Edited December 16, 2019 by gvegascple

[distortedlogic]

4 hours ago, gvegascple said:

It might be because height shaming seems to be a thing here.  If you are not for it, you are seen as not having vision, etc.   Especially when I have actually advocated for height and still just get the how about more height responses and how zoning limits today are seen as written in stone impediments to the future of Greenville for the rest of time.  I am pretty sure zoning is modified over time as changes are needed.   It just seems a bit weird to me. Just a vibe i get i suppose :-)

"It might be because height shaming seems to be a thing here." - Well that's a new one to me. I'd prefer we stay away from the modern cultural vernacular where everthng is about shaming, hating, or being victimized. 

In any case, I would disagree with your second sentence. There are plenty of areas downtown where I, and many others, would certainly agree that height is not needed or even disruptive. The Riverplace development does not have any height, nor would it be appropriate as it would overwhelm the river. There are many smaller low-rise develpments that have been built over the past decade that were fine and appropriate and have contributed greatly to the downtown fabric, and have resulted from an excellent vision.  However, there are some sites and developments, in which,  height seems very appropriate and visionary.  I think what you're picking up on is that some of us want to see development be a little more daring,  show a little more variety and creativity, and yield a little more "layering" to the city. Everyone agrees that tall buildings don't make a successful city, and Greenville is, in fact, a great example. BUT, there's also nothing wrong with wanting to see more variety in our development. There really is no reason that almost all of our development needs to be modern brick/stucco cubes and boxes with no tops and shorter than 12 stories. Surely with all the development we've had the past 15 years it would be ok for at least one of them, just one, to have been a 20 or 25 or even 30 story building. That's why you see us poking fun at 6 story proposals for the Gateway site, being disappointed at 5 story appt buildings at the former Peacock site or 4 story hotels at the former Pinnacle site, or rolling our eyes at 6 or even 12 story caps at a site like County Square. Am I ignoring the One buildings at 14 stories or the Camperdown Office building at 16 stories? No (though I do think the architecture could have been better). While those buildings fall on the higher end of everything we've seen, neither of them really go outside the box. Tall buildings do have a place and purpose in cities. They help to densify and develop cores, as well as promote multi-purpose downtowns. Some help cause this, others result from it.  No one wants Greenville developers to come in and build an 800 ft building for no reason, or throw up 5, 30 story buildings on spec.  But why be afraid to add another layer in the city? Why not make a 300 unit appt building a new 30 story building rather than a sprawling suburban 6 story one.  Why not combine 2 phases of Project One and leave a space for a future development? Why not have some coordination and get one 30 story building, one 20 story building, and 5 ten story buildings, rather than just 10 ten story buildings? Why not push something a little higher than someting that has been the city's tallest for 55 years and is one of the most hideously ugly buildings in the state, or something that has been the city's second tallest building for 45 years and is bland and uninspiring? Why have an irrational aversion to any development with significant height or that challenges the downtown roof? 

"I am pretty sure zoning is modified over time as changes are needed. " - Which is exactly what some of us are saying needs to happen with County Square. 

[gman430]

So what’s the latest? Did they work out a deal yet? 

[apaladin]

They're going to vote the end of January on when they will vote again. 

[gman430]

3 hours ago, apaladin said:

They're going to vote the end of January on when they will vote again. 

And then in February they will do the same thing. See what happens when you involve politics with anything. 

[vicupstate]

Politics is involved with everything. This isn't a run of the mill project so you shouldn't expect a run of the mill process.  

[gman430]

You would think we would hear something about if a deal has been worked out or not. Anyone have any news?