Jump to content

Greenville County Square redevelopment

gman430

By gman430
in Greenville

 Share

Recommended Posts


  • Replies 1.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Spartan
Spartan

Ok everyone, I removed the off topic posts and suspended the offender's account for one month.  Thanks to those who tried to be civil and tried to bring the topic back on track. I also want to apologi

gman430
gman430

Trees starting to come down at the old DHEC and DMV sites along the edge of University Ridge. Major site grading now underway at Whole Foods Market. Several other tenants have signed LOI’s. Full build

gman430
gman430

Posted Images

ingvegas Whistle-Stop

ingvegas

Posted
Posted

A 10 year statement might be in the agreement, but I don't think it is enforceable. If the government can take your private property under eminent domain then it can ignore a private developer's contract to terminate future development of a government owned property. 

If this falls through, which I don't think it will, then I suspect the County would be on the hook for refunding RocaPointe for their actual time costs and actual investment as damages. However, Roca will not have standing to stop future development of the site by another developer.  Roca was aware of the city's zoning requirements and the city's control of future development at the site at the time of purchase (so the County would actually have arguments to not even pay actual damages if Roca tries to pull out because they didn't get the zoning variances they want). Plus, assuming Roca is even compensated for their time and actual investment, then I don't see how it would be a wise business move to risk a large sum in attorney fees just to stop the County from developing the site at a later date with someone else. It does not help Roca's future bottom line. 

In short, I believe the "10-year mothball" is an unenforceable contract provision and carries no real weight. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
vicupstate Metropolitan Area

vicupstate

Posted
Posted

I am certainly not a lawyer but I don't see any correlation or parallel between Eminent Domain and contract law.  How  enforceable that clause is would be dependent on how it was written, I suppose but  if Roca Point's investment was considered an option, I don't know why it wouldn't hold up in court.       

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GvilleSC Megalopolis

GvilleSC

Posted
Posted
18 minutes ago, ingvegas said:

Contracts can be found unenforceable on grounds of public policy not only to protect one of the parties involved, but also because what the contract represents could pose harm to society as a whole.

But, does that applies here? I think the agreement stands. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
gman430 Megalopolis

gman430

Posted
  • Author
Posted
2 minutes ago, vicupstate said:

That is good news. Hopefully Roca Point can live with a 12 story cap.  

Oddly enough, the County Administrator told the Greenville News that the least important issue of the four they want is the 18 story height limit. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
GvilleSC Megalopolis

GvilleSC

Posted
Posted (edited)
17 minutes ago, gman430 said:

Oddly enough, the County Administrator told the Greenville News that the least important issue of the four they want is the 18 story height limit. 

I don't recall all of the issues that they're battling other than DRB review. But, regarding DRB review:

I'm not familiar with this developer having executed any projects in downtown Greenville in the past. So, I can understand their discomfort with what they perceive as perhaps intrusive reach of the DRB. However, compared to other places that I've done work, Greenville's DRB is rather mild. They should really work with the City and establish some trust, and understand how to best work within the guidelines. I believe they will find that it's not a project-killer.

Edited by GvilleSC
Link to comment
Share on other sites
distortedlogic Town

distortedlogic

Posted
Posted
20 minutes ago, vicupstate said:

That is good news. Hopefully Roca Point can live with a 12 story cap.  

It is what it is I guess. I personally still think that would be a huge missed opportunity to make a truly urban forward thinking development and would hurt the neighborhoods more in the long run as going less dense promotes more sprawl and gentrification.  I'm all for looking out for residents first, but I think they're missing the boat and thinking too short term here. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
gvegascple Hamlet

gvegascple

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, GvilleSC said:

I don't recall all of the issues that they're battling other than DRB review. But, regarding DRB review:

I'm not familiar with this developer having executed any projects in downtown Greenville in the past. So, I can understand their discomfort with what they perceive as perhaps intrusive reach of the DRB. However, compared to other places that I've done work, Greenville's DRB is rather mild. They should really work with the City and establish some trust, and understand how to best work within the guidelines. I believe they will find that it's not a project-killer.

From Gman's previous post:  issues below.  If not the height what could be their issue? I am a little skeptical its one of the other three

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 by gvegascple
Link to comment
Share on other sites
gvegascple Hamlet

gvegascple

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, gman430 said:

Greenville News. They’re new renderings of the city version of the project. 

the version with the 12 story cap.  Trying to imagine that same scene with two buildings almost twice as tall as the tallest in the first pic.   I like this version.   From the article it does hint that most council members are on board with the city's version.

 

"But in conversations The Greenville News has had with a majority of City Council members, a consensus has emerged that this council — with three new members who took office in December — is happy with conditions already placed on the project in October by the city's planning commission. Oversight and the 12-story buildings will likely stay."

Link to comment
Share on other sites
NewlyUpstate Hamlet

NewlyUpstate

Posted
Posted
52 minutes ago, GVLover said:

Imagine this completed alongside the envisioned Innovation District. Downtown Greenville over the next 10-15 years will be yet again on another level. 

1523B9ED-93BB-4C3E-917E-AA342DAABEA7.png

The "fog" behind the governor's school is interesting in that picture. I wonder if they have artwork of the redeveloped county square in this picture laying around somewhere haha

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.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • 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.