Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, FUgrad02 said:

 RocaPoint Partners/The Georgetown Company have a good track record? 

RocaPoint is currently developing the 135-acre multi-use "Halcyon" development in Forsyth County, Georgia, which opened last month, as well as the 17-acre Beltline Project in Atlanta's Grant Park neighborhood. Its parent company is The Georgetown Company, a New York-based firm that does major developments all over the country.  You do not have to worry about financing with them. 

Edited by gman430

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Some great posts in this thread; great discussion! I gotta tell you, it's hard not to be excited about this development for us urban geeks. This size and scope of a development is notable for any city, but truly will be transformational for Greenville. Greenville is on an unprecedented boom and the growth of DT is incredible. It's footprint has basically doubled over the past 14 years since the park opened,  and by the time this is completed, along with the new park, it will pretty much double again. Incredible amount of development, I hope we can withstand all of it without losing what makes it great.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, apaladin said:

Well, my first thought is just another bunch of 3-5 story buildings, regardless of architecture. Someone said they with the price of the property, they couldn't afford to put 3-5 story buildings, well I guess they can. Not impressed, but I will have to see more. Was hoping for a little height on this great piece of property but not surprised that there isn't any.

I sympathize, but as others have said, we kinda knew much height was unlikely here based on prior studies and the direction DT is going. Personally, I would have liked to have seen a building of about 20 stories, another one about 15, and the rest varying heights b/w 4-6 and 6-10. BUT, we knew that was not in cards. Like you, I'm disappointed the city didn't use this opportunity to impact the "skyline," but this is going to change DT regardless and, as Moten so eloquently put me in my place, "it is what it is!" If done correctly, this will still be transformational.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/26/2018 at 4:09 PM, GvilleSC said:

WOW! That building is gorgeous. Secondly, I love the re-routing of University Ridge. 

There's a lot to like about it; very open, something different, nice sharp look. I would tweak a few things, but not bad. Per the article, it sounds like this is still considered conceptual, didn't it say they will be designing it over the next 18 months?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Spero said:

This is Greenville not New York. If I could wish away one thing here it would be whining about height. Charleston has no height (self-imposed) and somehow they’re doing swell

To be fair, I'm sure you understand no one is saying Greenville should be building the Freedom Tower over there, but there is a lot of room between New York and Charleston. Greenville has also done very well without height, but there's nothing wrong with some people wanting to see a little. I'm sure Greenville could have developed some of these projects into 2-3 buildings over 30 stories around DT, and maybe a couple 15-20 ones for layering, but that's not what is happening and we're doing fine. Some people are ok with the low rise horizontal growth we've seen, some would like to see a little vertical as well. Without different viewpoints there's nothing to discuss.

13 hours ago, gman430 said:

 

And you all are worried about height. LOL.  You’ll get that with Camperdown and the new federal courthouse anyways. 

Unless one doesn't consider Camperdown and an 8-10 story courthouse to be "height." I don't personally, but I hope to see that signature high rise in my lifetime.:thumbsup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, distortedlogic said:

I sympathize, but as others have said, we kinda knew much height was unlikely here based on prior studies and the direction DT is going. Personally, I would have liked to have seen a building of about 20 stories, another one about 15, and the rest varying heights b/w 4-6 and 6-10. BUT, we knew that was not in cards. Like you, I'm disappointed the city didn't use this opportunity to impact the "skyline," but this is going to change DT regardless and, as Moten so eloquently put me in my place, "it is what it is!" If done correctly, this will still be transformational.

Well, it is right? Lol. I just enjoy the ride. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, ausrutherford said:

6 stories is the max in this PD. So you will likely not see the City stray to far from that. 

the PD can be amended too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rome doesn't have much height either; or, more comparable in size to Greenville, Florence (Firenze) has no height at all (except the domes and campaniles). All to say that I really like the more European manner of downtown's development. This seems to continue that, more or less.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, btoy said:

the PD can be amended too.

Of course, however, that PD was arranged with the community around it.

The community would still not want to diverge away too much. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ausrutherford said:

Of course, however, that PD was arranged with the community around it.

The community would still not want to diverge away too much. 

If a corporate headquarters wanted to locate there with a new 20+ story building and create hundreds of new jobs, the city would bend over backwards for them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the rendering shows what looks to be  hotel that looks about 8 or more stories tall. I realize it is just for illustration purposes, but I would expect the buyer would have flexibility to go that high, at least in the middle of the parcel.  

The height limit never made sense in the first place.  Many of the people that participated in the  original master plan have probably moved away or passed on by now. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, gman430 said:

If a corporate headquarters wanted to locate there with a new 20+ story building and create hundreds of new jobs, the city would bend over backwards for them. 

All depends on the circumstances, of course. Just pointing out that the current limit is 6 stories. 

My guess if someone wanted to go higher, the City would want more open space in return (in a way, treating it as FAR).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That PD was passed a long time ago, we have different planning staff, different planning commission, different neighborhood residents, different city council, and different board of zoning appeals, and the PD as it stands is flawed I don't see it holding all that much weight in the approval process of this project.  Yes it is unique as its ordinance, but there is just too much money involved to think the city want do want they need to help this project along. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m surprised the FAR isn’t higher. I guess they want more open space, just hope it doesn’t feel too suburban. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Jet-set said:

https://greenvillejournal.com/more-details-released-on-redevelopment-of-county-square/

More details. 

Max height for the development capped at 10 stories. 

Also, 3.5 is not a ratio GJ. 

10 stories on that hill will still look good especially if it’s office space which has higher floor plates than apartments or hotels. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very glad to hear the 6 floor limit is about to be history. It never made sense. I would be fine with  at least 12 but the market probably wouldn't support that anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a neat-looking building now, but like many things being built downtown these days, how will it look in 20-30 years?

Couldn't we do a survey of "the world's most timeless urban areas" and clone one of their architectural styles?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, PuppiesandKittens said:

It's a neat-looking building now, but like many things being built downtown these days, how will it look in 20-30 years?

Couldn't we do a survey of "the world's most timeless urban areas" and clone one of their architectural styles?

Yes, just like Las Vegas. Timeless, classy, real top-notch

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is nothing wrong with most of Greenville's current buildings to me as far as being outdated. Since the Landmark building is the current tallest, I'd like to see it get a makeover. It's kind of dated. I'm sure this project will impress when it's done.

Edited by motonenterprises

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Spero said:

Yes, just like Las Vegas. Timeless, classy, real top-notch

Like much of central London’s Georgian, Edwardian and Victorian architecture-buildings have lasted hundreds of years and are still beautiful.  Or even the Poinsett Hotel it the Greenville water works building, which also have timeless styles.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Content

    • By cammers1995
      As I said in my introduction topic, I am heavily facinated by the original Meijer Store on Lafayette St, in Greenville. (Aka, Store #1)
      This store still stands and is used for many things. The far right is used as a food pantry and a thrift store. The majority of the middle is a BMX track and the far left is some unknown thing. (I believe it WAS a chaple). The building is in bad shape though. The roof is leaking terribly and the thrift store has many storage totes sitting under the leaks. (There are at least 30 of them, no joke. Its bad.)
       
       
      I have many photos of the building from last year:
       
       
       
      Some of the coolest things are that the Welcome Sign above the non 24 hour entrance is still partially lit up, and the building still appears to look like a Meijer. 
      Anyone else have their own stories, photos, etc to share? 
    • By RuskinSquare
      Short version: Greenville City Council asked the planning and zoning department to push deleting the existing ordinance restricting gates on developments and neighborhoods in the City of Greenville. It's expected to be on the agenda for the City Council's 11/26/2012 hearing.

      The Planning Commission recommended wording that they felt would strengthen the existing requriement, but ultimately the final wording/deletion is up to City Council to decide.


      A petition is circulating to support the Planning Commission's recommendation to strengthen the existing requriement:

      http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/gates_GVL_SC/

      Long version in next post below

      Long version:

      The City of Greenville Planning and Zoning Department was asked by City Council to delete the City ordinance restricting gates, gate houses and guard houses unless the decision-making body determines there is public safety reason to allow them. (Reference: Planning Staff Report to the Greenville Planning Commission and City Council 9.13.2012, available online under the 9/13/2012 Planning Commission Agenda file Z-29-2012-TextAmendment.pdf)
      The Planning and Zoning Department proposed language that would eliminate the restriction altogether. At its September hearing, the Planning Commission felt eliminating the restriction completely was not consistent with goals of the Comprehensive Plan. They suggested the Planning and Zoning Department revise the language to require a public hearing and broaden the criteria by which the decision-making body would evaluate a proposal including gates, etc. There was further discussion of this issue at the October hearing. (Reference: Planning Staff Report to the Greenville Planning Commission and City Council 10.31.2012, available online under the 11/08/2012 Planning Commission Agenda file Z-29-2012-TextAmendment-Gates.pdf)

      At its November hearing, the Planning Commission approved recommended wording to City Council that they felt would strengthen the restriction on gates. The ordinance restricting gates is expected to be on the agenda for the November 26, 2012 City Council hearing. (Reference: my notes from the 11/08/2012 Planning Commission hearing). The Commission's recommended wording is based on Option 2 from the 10.31.2012 Planning Staff Report, less the word "marketability".

      My neighborhood has started circulating a petition supporting the Planning Commission's recommendation to strengthen the existing restriction. The petition is online at: http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/gates_gvl_sc/