Greenville County Square redevelopment

[gman430]

Thanks for the scoop. Great to hear there was a lot of positivity and optimism at the meeting among residents and city leaders. 

[gman430]

Greenville News story tomorrow on the meeting today. 

Edited January 15, 2020 by gman430

[gman430]

County wants 18 story buildings: https://www.greenvilleonline.com/story/news/local/greenville/downtown/2020/01/16/greenville-county-sc-says-wants-18-story-buildings-county-square-vote-special-meeting/4467266002/ I say give it to them. This guy is 100% right: 

"The city doesn't really have a choice," County Councilman Ennis Fant said Tuesday. "It's either 3.5 million square feet with green space, trails and organization. Or 6 million square feet of chaos with nothing. Do you have a choice, really?"

 

The county wants these four changes with the height issue being the hardest one for the city to go along with: 

 

-Two towers up to 18 stories: The county and RocaPoint want to build two buildings reaching up to 18 stories at the center of the project area. They had previously asked for 20 stories, but the planning commission in October capped construction at 12 stories.

-No architectural review of apartment buildings: The city wants to subject muti-family residential buildings to an architectural review board, but the county and RocaPoint argue in the letter that such review is not required elsewhere downtown.

-Outside review of design conflicts: The planning commission in October recommended they take on any appeals from RocaPoint if the developer disagrees with any design review decisions reached by city staff. The county and Roca say they would prefer such appeals be mediated by an outside architectural firm.

-No new traffic study: As part of their zoning application the county and Roca submitted a 49-page traffic study with 193 pages of supporting data. That study itself was revised from an earlier study. The planning commission recommended Roca submit an additional study in five years.

Edited January 16, 2020 by gman430

[GvilleSC]

18 < 20. The outraged "neighbors" should be happy.

I look forward to the day when this is no longer called County Square. I wish they would go ahead and brand this area with a name (maybe Haynie Sirrine is appropriate, though that neighborhood is really centered further south). I do not want some developer's lousy attempt with ________ Station, etc. The City should be taking charge and developing an identity to this urban node. Could this be South End? 

Also -- what I find interesting in looking back at the Haynie-Sirrine masterplan is that they slated County Square for "moderate redevelopment".  So, yes-- if you leave the old Mall building and parking lots in place, then 6 story buildings would be appropriate along University Ridge. This has been covered extensively, but I do not believe you can allow some 20 year old plan that had a clear lack of foresight to govern more appropriate and ambitious plans for the site. 

 

https://www.greenvillesc.gov/DocumentCenter/View/296/Haynie-Sirrine-Master-Plan-PDF?bidId=

Edited January 16, 2020 by GvilleSC

[gman430]

Reached by text message Wednesday afternoon, Greenville Mayor Knox White said that the county's views were well-known to the city but that the city's planning commission — with recommendations it made last fall for lower building heights and a host of design review requirements — had the support of most City Council members.

"It's the exact same letter from several months ago. Many good points to agree to," White wrote, adding: "It's been conveyed that council (is) likely to affirm planning commission as to height."

The Greenville News reached out to City Council members Wednesday afternoon. Wil Brasington said he was familiar with the county's demands and welcomed ongoing communication between the governments. Lillian Brock Flemming said she was just learning about the letter and could not comment. Newly elected councilwoman Dorothy Dowe said she fully intends to take feedback from all stakeholders — county leaders, city staff and city residents — up until next week's vote.

"It's a long way to the 22nd," she said.

Dowe said residents she has spoken with near the project want, if anything, shorter buildings. She said the county's request for 18 stories is "not a move in the right direction." She said she was also reluctant to make any changes to the city's conditions that would limit public input during the "10-year journey" of the project's construction.

Edited January 16, 2020 by gman430

[gman430]

It’s like watching a bad car accident. This whole project is nothing but a mess. I’m surprised RocaPoint hasn’t walked away yet. I would have by now with these stupid politicians who can’t get along: 

 

Kernell also explained the city's plan to add an additional $5 million to a fund for affordable housing in and around Haynie-Sirrine from proceeds the county has dedicated toward a parking deck in the West End. The parking deck itself will cost $20 million but the city has parking funds it can use to finance half the project, necessitating only $10 million in county money for the rest of the deck. That leaves $5 million left over without changing the size of the deck.

Kernell said the city has already asked RocaPoint about buying an acre of land behind the public health department — which is within the 37-acre footprint of the County Square project — for an affordable housing project.

Fant said he was uncomfortable with the mayor's proposal for more affordable housing on the County Square site. Rents in such a project, he said, would likely be too high for the county's lowest-income residents. He also said that he could not support it without a guarantee of 20% minority participation in the building's construction and marketing.

[GvilleSC]

Quote

"The city doesn't really have a choice," County Councilman Ennis Fant said Tuesday. "It's either 3.5 million square feet with green space, trails and organization. Or 6 million square feet of chaos with nothing. Do you have a choice, really?"

Is this statement actually true? If the developer can build 6 million SF, then the land will still have significant value. I would assume that as soon as they start dividing up the site and laying out roadways that this will come back before the City for planning review. 

[gman430]

Just now, GvilleSC said:

Is this statement actually true? If the developer can build 6 million SF, then the land will still have significant value. I would assume that as soon as they start dividing up the site and laying out roadways that this will come back before the City for planning review. 

Yes it is. The county administrator confirmed it also in the news article. 

[GvilleSC]

3 minutes ago, gman430 said:

Yes it is. The county administrator confirmed it also in the news article. 

Which part? I guess it depends on how you define "chaos and nothing" and what exactly you're saying is true. Ultimately, if the developer decides to build chaos, they're not going to be filling apartments at maximum value, or finding tenants for commercial uses. So, do they really have a choice to build something with a low quality of life? This is all much more nuanced than the posturing we're seeing. 

Edited January 16, 2020 by GvilleSC

[gvegascple]

This is very predictable negotiating from both sides, with the county seeming less experienced in this arena IMHO.  They make no concession while asking for more to keep the ball rolling so that when they do concede something that they are closer to their initial wants.  Bush League stuff right there.  Good negotiations take into account both sides need to walk away feeling like they won and I see less effort from the county towards this.  I hope the city maintains their composure despite what seems from the outside as amateur and potentially incendiary tactics from the county.  No design review? More threats about putting forth an ugly project with less green space if their demands are not met?  With tactics like these, this could drag on or implode at any moment if the city doesnt remain calm and keep their eye on the big picture and what is best for the city,  If it were me, I would have a hard time resisting getting dragged into the mud with the  county and going tit for tat with them with this crap.  I am glad from the outside looking in, the city is showing restraint.  

Edited January 16, 2020 by gvegascple

[gman430]

3 minutes ago, GvilleSC said:

Which part? I guess it depends on how you define "chaos and nothing" and what exactly you're saying is true. Ultimately, if the developer decides to build chaos, they're not going to be filling apartments at maximum value, or finding tenants for commercial uses. So, do they really have a choice to build something with a low quality of life? This is all much more nuanced than the posturing we're seeing. 

The six million square feet part. 

Edited January 16, 2020 by gman430

[GvilleSC]

2 minutes ago, gman430 said:

The six million square feet.

If a developer can introduce that amount of real estate into the market and not lose their shirt, then go for it. But, it won't happen, IMO. 

[gvegascple]

10 minutes ago, GvilleSC said:

If a developer can introduce that amount of real estate into the market and not lose their shirt, then go for it. But, it won't happen, IMO. 

I agree.  I feel like the developer and the county are basically daring the city to tell them to go pound sand.  Try to build out without green space and capped at 5 floors.  The developer will bail, the county will be out 3.5M and be back to square one.  This is a stupid hill to die on for them.  In this negotiating field, the city has escalation dominance.   If it goes to a back and forth, ultimately the county will end up the loser. The city is trying to work with them because this is a good project and the county is playing games. 

Edited January 16, 2020 by gvegascple

[gman430]

3 minutes ago, gvegascple said:

I agree.  I feel like the developer and the county are basically daring the city to tell them to go pound sand.  Try to build out without green space and capped at 5 floors.  The developer will bail, the county will be out 3.5M and be back to square one.  This is a stupid hill to die on for them.  In this negotiating field, the city has escalation dominance.   If it goes to a back and forth, ultimately the county will end up the loser. The city is trying to work with them because this is a good project and the county is playing games. 

Don’t forget about all of the money the county has already spent on the project from engineering to surveying to architecture. That would be egg on their face for sure. 

Edited January 16, 2020 by gman430

[gvegascple]

2 minutes ago, gman430 said:

Don’t forget about all of the money the county has already spent on the project from engineering to surveying to architecture. That would be egg on their face for sure. 

and deservedly so IMHO

[GvilleSC]

4 minutes ago, gvegascple said:

I agree.  I feel like the developer and the county are basically daring the city to tell them to go pound sand.  Try to build out without green space and capped at 5 floors.  The developer will bail, the county will be out 3.5M and be back to square one.  This is a stupid hill to die on for them.  In this negotiating field, the city has escalation dominance.   If it goes to a back and forth, ultimately the county will end up the loser. The city is trying to work with them because this is a good project and the county is playing games. 

Games, indeed. I don't like that the County could lose the tax payers' money over this whole debacle. However, every single county council member should be held to account if this goes awry. However, that will depend on the media coverage, and I'm not sure I trust how The Greenville News, at least, has covered this entire thing.

[ingvegas]

2 hours ago, gvegascple said:

I agree.  I feel like the developer and the county are basically daring the city to tell them to go pound sand.  Try to build out without green space and capped at 5 floors.  The developer will bail, the county will be out 3.5M and be back to square one.  This is a stupid hill to die on for them.  In this negotiating field, the city has escalation dominance.   If it goes to a back and forth, ultimately the county will end up the loser. The city is trying to work with them because this is a good project and the county is playing games. 

I hope the city tells them to pound sand. This is a public shakedown. 

[gvegascple]

1 hour ago, ingvegas said:

I hope the city tells them to pound sand. This is a public shakedown. 

Its taking some restraint right now I can imagine.  The county reminds me of an ex right now, trying to push the city's buttons to get it to do something rash while the city is doing everything it can to stay calm and focused on what is best.  Really not the best showing for the county.  Maybe its the only way they think they can get out of the desperate corner they have painted themselves into.   No matter what position you are in, its always good to ask if what you are doing is fair and reasonable before acting, the county does not seem to have this credo.

Edited January 16, 2020 by gvegascple

[gman430]

The G-News writer who wrote the story told me that the city council members interviewed were very cool headed and nice about the whole thing. 
 

If the city council does vote with what the planning commission approved, will the county pull all of the city funding (garage, traffic mitigation, museum, etc) or will they ultimately decide to go along with it? Yeah, you want 18 stories but 12 is still much better than six.

Edited January 16, 2020 by gman430

[gvegascple]

45 minutes ago, gman430 said:

The G-News writer who wrote the story told me that the city council members interviewed were very cool headed and nice about the whole thing. 
 

If the city council does vote with what the planning commission approved, will the county pull all of the city funding (garage, traffic mitigation, museum, etc) or will they ultimately decide to go along with it? Yeah, you want 18 stories but 12 is still much better than six.

are you asking if the city ups the height to 12 and agreed to the other county requests like no design review, will the county take the height move forward and then still follow through with pulling back on funding for the museum etc?   That would be such a slithery move.   And 12 is better than six as well as fair and reasonable.  Its where this was headed from the start.  The rest of this mess could have been avoided.

Edited January 16, 2020 by gvegascple

[vicupstate]

It is glaringly obvious that the county has zero experience in this realm.  I thought we were pretty close to an agreement but I don't know what the end result is going to be. 

[gman430]

18 minutes ago, gvegascple said:

are you asking if the city ups the height to 12 and agreed to the other county requests like no design review, will the county take the height move forward and then still follow through with pulling back on funding for the museum etc?   That would be such a slithery move.   And 12 is better than six as well as fair and reasonable.  Its where this was headed from the start.  The rest of this mess could have been avoided.

I‘m referring to if the city doesn’t give in to any of their demands including design and height. The planning commission approval doesn’t give any of these four things the county wants. The city vote is basically a mirror copy of the planning commission’s on how the project looks and what’s included. Does the city budge and risk losing funding for various things downtown or do they hold their ground and say this is what we want? That’s the big question. It’s like watching a bad game of Chess. 
 

And even though I would love 18 stories I can live with 12 on this site. It seems like a good middle ground. Being on that big hill will still make the buildings stand out fairly tall also. 

Edited January 16, 2020 by gman430

[gvegascple]

6 minutes ago, gman430 said:

And even though I would love 18 stories I can live with 12 on this site. It seems like a good middle ground. Being on that big hill will still make the buildings stand out fairly tall also. 

I wonder what the elevation difference is from the spot they want to build the taller buildings and river walk and how that would translate into stories, I agree it will stand out taller because of this.  When taking in the skyline as a whole, this does not seem to be a great spot for another head, its barely a good spot for shoulders. Thankfully Southridge has some height to balance things out.

[GvilleSC]

21 minutes ago, gvegascple said:

are you asking if the city ups the height to 12 and agreed to the other county requests like no design review, 

This site absolutely needs to be under DRB review. That should not be negotiable from the City's perspective. I feel like a broken record on this, but the City needs to actively expand the boundaries of the DRB influence to keep up with Greenville's urban growth and expansion. Look at the AC Hotel. The developer has tried several times to modify the initial design to include cheaper materials or less complex facades. Without oversight, developers WILL find a way to build their buildings for the cheapest possible price and we'll be left with the results for our lifetimes.

[gvegascple]

4 minutes ago, GvilleSC said:

This site absolutely needs to be under DRB review. That should not be negotiable from the City's perspective. I feel like a broken record on this, but the City needs to actively expand the boundaries of the DRB influence to keep up with Greenville's urban growth and expansion. Look at the AC Hotel. The developer has tried several times to modify the initial design to include cheaper materials or less complex facades. Without oversight, developers WILL find a way to build their buildings for the cheapest possible price and we'll be left with the results for our lifetimes.

I am 100% in agreement on all points made above.  There are developers that have reputations such that I would trust, and I imagine those developers have forged good relationships with the DRB and would not be averse to any oversight anyway

Edited January 16, 2020 by gvegascple