Jump to content

Greenville County Square redevelopment


gman430

Recommended Posts


Interested to see how/whether this communicates with the Church Street/South Broad area. Maybe someone that knows how this site worked before County Square can learn me, but I've always thought a full-blown incorporation into the downtown fabric is impaired by the the Governor's school - from a pedestrian perspective it's dependent on the West End.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Spero said:

Interested to see how/whether this communicates with the Church Street/South Broad area. Maybe someone that knows how this site worked before County Square can learn me, but I've always thought a full-blown incorporation into the downtown fabric is impaired by the the Governor's school - from a pedestrian perspective it's dependent on the West End.

It was Furman U up till the late 50's. Then Bell Tower Mall operated from the late 60's till the early-to-mid 80's, with a major movie theater onsite, Baskin-Robbins, a Woolworth, a department store called "Edward's" (if memory serves), two grocery stores (for a time, at least), and a below-average collection of tenants inside. It always seemed to get by, for at least 3 reasons, in my opinion:

1) General Hospital was still the main facility, and so there were physicians' offices all over the West End, very close to the mall--a built-in, relatively wealthy clientele.

2) Furman was still playing its football games at Sirrine Stadium, and so, even though that was only 5 or 6 weekends in the Fall, there was still some energy generated in that area.

3) There was some complementary retail in the area: the 8 O'Clock Superette across from Sirrine Stadium (where the high-end condominium building just went up); the Marquette on Augusta (still there, just empty, last time I drove by), and a few other places. If you shopped at one of those, Woolworth, or A&P or W-D, or some other Mall store was pretty convenient.

Anyway, Spero makes a good point: even before the Governor's School, the Mall was very closely connected with the West End and with the area around Sirrine Stadium. The park was a natural barrier before the Governor's School was proposed. It seemed Mall traffic was naturally aligned along University Ridge, not so much down Church Street. When the M.D.'s departed en masse for Greenville Memorial, and Furman built their on-campus stadium, the whole area went straight downhill, and the Mall with it.

So, I think whatever happens there ought to have some relation to the West End. Building an adjunct to downtown or a "midtown" might end up being an island.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When the building was Bell Tower Mall, I don't think it had much connectivity with the surrounding area.  I (as a child) was always driven to the mall, even though it was certainly within walking distance.  We'd stop by Baskin Robbins sometimes after coming from events downtown.  But it certainly wasn't integrated with the surrounding area in a pedestrian-friendly way.  It was a mall, with big parking lots.

It would be nice to see the site made so that it's walkable, and nice to see the entire area built so it's walkable.

I still think that site is horrible for anything that requires car traffic to generate business.  The only high-traffic street in the area is Church Street, and it's difficult to see much of the site from Church Street.  The mall's main anchor, Woolco, for example, is on the west end of the site, towards the tiny streets in the West End, so anyone driving down Church Street wouldn't see it.  The site would work much better if it's integrated into downtown so that people will walk (or drive) from downtown to it, coming from the West End, as a natural extension of their trip around downtown.

So maybe the site should be:

(1) Retail that benefits from car traffic for customers (big-box stores, etc.): right along Church Street

(2) Retail/restaurants that would attract the slews of people in the West End and Falls Park: right near the Governor's School and on the side of the site near the West End, and built so it's easy to walk from the West End and the park

(3) Government buildings: in the middle, since people will drive to those and they don't depend on car traffic to generate activity

This being Greenville, how many mid-market hotels will be built on the site?

Edited by PuppiesandKittens
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm trying to think of what could be included that would work out to 1.5 billion. At first that sounds like a speculative estimate that one might use to rally the powers that be, but with a chosen developer who has already revealed a site plan it must be a very detailed and ambitious layout being envisioned, meaning the 1.5 is a pretty close estimate for the plan itself. So this is basically 7.5 Camperdowns in investment in a little over twice the area!

We know some is for a new county office building and parking deck. I am guessing there would be a considerable amount of site prep like pulling  out old parking lots, streetscaping,  sidewalks, beatification, new roadworks, etc. But what then? It almost seems there would have to be a large corporate involvement here somewhere, I can't imagine a couple midrise condo buildings, another hotel, a couple restaurants, and a county office building adding up to 1.5 B! I wonder if a whole reworking of University  Ridge and the road it crosses before Augusta is part of this (I actually wish all the property back to the old Scott Tower site could be included). 

I checked out the website for Roca Point and saw the renderings for their Forsyth County Village project. Can't say I'm crazy about the look there, very modern and rather boring looking Camperdown type architecture, but this should be a different type of site.

Also checked out the site for the British architectural firm, their stuff looks supper modern but definitely more European, symmetrical angles and more space agey type stuff, so there could be some interesting ideas there.

We've said before this site definitely has the ability to take DT to a whole different level and I think a lot of us would like to see some creative and unique elements here and something to add to (or even reinvent ) the skyline. My interest is piqued!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that the $1.5 billion figure should be ignored because the article Inread stated that the price could be UP TO $1.5 billion.

The price could be UP TO anything.  Why don’t we just say that it’ll be UP TO $1 trillion, just in case Amazon builds its new HQ there with buildings made out of diamonds and Bitcoins?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would also prefer that the government sell the land to a private developer and let the private developer handle the redevelopment without any more government oversight than any other regular downtown real estate development would have.

Government doesn't exactly have a great track record with amazing real estate development. 

Edited by PuppiesandKittens
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, PuppiesandKittens said:

I would also prefer that the government sell the land to a private developer and let the private developer handle the redevelopment without any more government oversight than any other regular downtown real estate development would have.

Government doesn't exactly have a great track record with amazing real estate development. 

That is what they are doing, other than the buyer having to potentially build the Admin building

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, vicupstate said:

That is what they are doing, other than the buyer having to potentially build the Admin building

Government selected the developer.  Who knows what constraints have been put on the developer by government during this long and secretive process?

What I want is for government to sell the land to the highest bidder and get out of the picture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, PuppiesandKittens said:

Government selected the developer.  Who knows what constraints have been put on the developer by government during this long and secretive process?

What I want is for government to sell the land to the highest bidder and get out of the picture.

I would be very surprised if any contraints were put on them beyond the admin building and the garage.  I think the process was in determining who would was best able to bring the best vision that they were capable of fulfilling.  They want the ultimately  highest taxable value.    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, vicupstate said:

I would be very surprised if any contraints were put on them beyond the admin building and the garage.  I think the process was in determining who would was best able to bring the best vision that they were capable of fulfilling.  They want the ultimately  highest taxable value.    

Yes, government wants its vision imposed on the site.  Bad.  

Government should have just auctioned off the site to the highest bidder and withdrawn.  That would have been a quick process completed a long time ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The highest bidder would not necessarily result in the highest ultimate value to the county. The tax revenue long term would far outweigh the difference in  sales price.  While there is tremendous potential with County Square, it is not  easy project by any means.  It is disconnected and isolated to some extent, and the University Ridge  revamp that I imagine will be required is not a quick, easy fix.  Obviously the construction of a 1250k SF building and 1,000 car garage are complicating factors as well.  

A less capable or competent developer could throw a few buildings on it and make themselves a short term profit but not result in a successful project.  Look how many iterations it took to get something to work at what use to be Greenville Mall [now Magnolia Park].  Sold to the wrong party, this could be far short of its potential or even an abject failure.  

I think the county knows it has one shot to get this right. They want a developer that can bring about the best outcome. While I believe they will be pretty involved in their own building, I don't see any indication that they are going to be in the weeds of this project for the duration.  As far as design and architecture details that is in the city's perview already.  The county doesn't have the expertise nor the desire to do the city's job, and doesn't have the legal means even if it did.    

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even in a private sale where the seller maintains a relationship with the purchaser after the sale is consummated (eg a sale-leaseback) the identity of the purchaser and their plan for the property is an intrinsic aspect of the consideration. If the county were only to account for sales price they would create long term drag, greater inefficiency, and a net loss to the taxpayers. 

Whatever the dogma about government this is simple economics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually some of the best recent developments in the country is where the local government owns the land and forces the developers to do what they want. 

That is why many old malls have been bought by local governments for redevelopment for they feared that a developer would just pull in a couple strip malls and suburban apartments.

It does help already that this area is a PD, btw the county having some strings allows for better development altogether. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
  • 1 month later...
  • 3 weeks later...

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.

  • 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.