The McClaren

[Joey_Blackdogg]

Overall, I like the project and welcome it to the neighborhood, but what's the purpose of the little brick outcrop structure on the 123 side? It looks random, unfinished and out of place with the materials shown in the rendering. I understand the desire/need to terrace the levels up to the foot of the building, but the brick structure just seems unnecessary.

[johnpro318]

2 minutes ago, Joey_Blackdogg said:

Overall, I like the project and welcome it to the neighborhood, but what's the purpose of the little brick outcrop structure on the 123 side? It looks random, unfinished and out of place with the materials shown in the rendering. I understand the desire/need to terrace the levels up to the foot of the building, but the brick structure just seems unnecessary.

It’s currently on site and will be moved. It has historical significance and the developers, smartly I’d say, decided to up front try to accommodate the building. With what happened to the Wyche Pavillion plans, it was smart to address it from the jump. I don’t have the history of it so maybe someone else can chime in. 

[Joey_Blackdogg]

1 minute ago, johnpro318 said:

It’s currently on site and will be moved. It has historical significance and the developers, smartly I’d say, decided to up front try to accommodate the building. With what happened to the Wyche Pavillion plans, it was smart to address it from the jump. I don’t have the history of it so maybe someone else can chime in. 

Thanks John. I didn't appreciate that it was the same building that The Ward Art Studios had been in. Seems like it'd be cooler if they could incorporate it into the communal area on the Rhett St side of the project as a center piece or entry way into their plaza, rather than to the backside of the tallest portion of the structure.

[vicupstate]

It is the McClaren clinic. It was the only place African-Americans could receive medical services during the Jim Crow Era. 

This is actually going to be a significant issue in whether this project proceeds as designed. 

Dr. McClaren's house is next to this building and will be torn down along with the wood siding bungalow closer to Rhett.  Both are available for free to anyone that will move them from the site.     

[johnpro318]

1 hour ago, Joey_Blackdogg said:

Thanks John. I didn't appreciate that it was the same building that The Ward Art Studios had been in. Seems like it'd be cooler if they could incorporate it into the communal area on the Rhett St side of the project as a center piece or entry way into their plaza, rather than to the backside of the tallest portion of the structure.

I like that! They should definitely make it more of a centerpiece if they are already moving it (albeit slightly). 

[distortedlogic]

MUCH nicer than what is being proposed for for either the site just up the road, or the Scott Towers site! This is a much better example of how to "unboxify" a structure, vary the levels, add some character etc. Hope the developers of the other two will take some notes. Looks like 11 stories at the tallest?

[GvilleSC]

22 minutes ago, distortedlogic said:

MUCH nicer than what is being proposed for for either the site just up the road, or the Scott Towers site! This is a much better example of how to "unboxify" a structure, vary the levels, add some character etc. Hope the developers of the other two will take some notes. Looks like 11 stories at the tallest? 

It's going to be quite tall against Academy Street.

I will say that I was nervous about this developer based on their website. They've currently proved me wrong. GRANTED: as we've seen with the AC hotel, as cost of materials (etc.) come into reality, things may have to be revised. 

[vicupstate]

Renderings revealed for West End 9 story mixed use development

 

[ausrutherford]

Ehhh...does not look like it belongs in the West End portion of town. Rather dull on many elevations. 

[cabelagent]

15 minutes ago, ausrutherford said:

Ehhh...does not look like it belongs in the West End portion of town. Rather dull on many elevations. 

Curious....what design belongs in the west end?  DRB will likely request design changes to fit the area. A structure as this upon entering downtown from that part of the city should be attractive...believe it will be.   

[ausrutherford]

4 minutes ago, cabelagent said:

Curious....what design belongs in the west end?  DRB will likely request design changes to fit the area. A structure as this upon entering downtown from that part of the city should be attractive...believe it will be.   

Basically the need for more brick, maybe some steel, and overall less modern. This building is nothing but modern with very little brick, if any.

 

[SCphil]

I’m grateful for the incorporation of a public plaza. Finally, there’s a place for the passerby on the West End instead of having to trek to the park or the north side of the river for enjoying this type of downtown amenity. The proposed height of the building initially left me awestruck, but I’m encouraged by the density this would offer the neighborhood. I also commend the brave creativity evident in the conceptual design. 

Edited February 22, 2019 by SCphil

[distortedlogic]

3 hours ago, ausrutherford said:

Basically the need for more brick, maybe some steel, and overall less modern. This building is nothing but modern with very little brick, if any.

 

This is one of the things I like about it. Even though it is modern, it is much more creative than most of the modern stuff we've seen. And I'm good with no brick; while I like brick, we need more variety, waaay too many brick boxes out there now.

[vicupstate]

There will be a public meeting on this project on MONDAY, March 4 from 6:30-8:30 pm at the Kroc Center. 

Several neighborhood associations and groups are seeking to preserve the McClaren building as a functional building and not just as a 'monument/memorial'.  The plan as it stands now is that only the font 30 feet-50 feet of the building would be moved and it would not have a roof.    

[GvilleSC]

44 minutes ago, vicupstate said:

There will be a public meeting on this project on MONDAY, March 4 from 6:30-8:30 pm at the Kroc Center. 

Several neighborhood associations and groups are seeking to preserve the McClaren building as a functional building and not just as a 'monument/memorial'.  The plan as it stands now is that only the font 30 feet-50 feet of the building would be moved and it would not have a roof.    

Granted, I don't know how this preserved, open structure would function. However, it's a unique way to save the building and give the public access.

The problem that I have with the opposition to this plan is that's it's not architecturally significant. So, saving it as a private structure that people cannot touch and freely enter keeps it as just a building that we all drive by everyday and never know the history of... Opening it up and giving it to the public (in a sense), makes it interactive in a way that people can discover the stories in their own backyard.

What are the other options that can legitimately be on the table for a private entity spending private money? Demolition. Private event space for the residents of the development. (Both of which would be a travesty)

But, I welcome the discussion and am interested in hearing the community's concerns spelled out.

Edited February 22, 2019 by GvilleSC

[vicupstate]

No one is suggesting that the McClaren building be a private property. While the exact programming is by no means determined, the idea is that it would  present the history of the building and be available to the general public for meetings, functions, etc.   It is all very fluid and conceptional at the moment.  

[GvilleSC]

25 minutes ago, vicupstate said:

No one is suggesting that the McClaren building be a private property. While the exact programming is by no means determined, the idea is that it would  present the history of the building and be available to the general public for meetings, functions, etc.   It is all very fluid and conceptional at the moment.  

I understand all of that -- I'm just voicing caution. If the request is that the building remain a functioning building, then someone has to pay for that and carry the budget line item of its on-going maintenance. Thus, it's either turned over to a non-profit to run, the city, or the developer retains ownership (which would be private).

The point being, the community only gets to ask for so much of a private developer on private property that is already zoned appropriately. It seems that the only potential bargaining chip is demolition approval(?).

If the building is to remain a building in a functional state, the developer can fulfil that wish and use it how they like (an amenity space?), with the potential of its history being relegated to a plaque on the street.  I'm just saying that we don't know in what direction the community's requests will push this. And, I  say be careful what you wish for. I like the current proposal. 

Edited February 22, 2019 by GvilleSC

[vicupstate]

The approval for demolition is definitely not a given, and would throw a monkey wrench into the developers plans. I don't think the grassroots group would be satisfied with it being privately held and I really doubt the developer would want to own it. That said, it is a very fluid situation so I guess nothing is off the table at this early stage.  

[Exile]

Based on what you all have written, am I right to think that this may turn out to be comparable to the Wilkins House/Waterstone issue?

[vicupstate]

I would say so. 

[cabelagent]

13 hours ago, vicupstate said:

There will be a public meeting on this project on MONDAY, March 4 from 6:30-8:30 pm at the Kroc Center. 

Several neighborhood associations and groups are seeking to preserve the McClaren building as a functional building and not just as a 'monument/memorial'.  The plan as it stands now is that only the font 30 feet-50 feet of the building would be moved and it would not have a roof.    

This has twists & turns....should be quite a hearing at Kroc Center.

[vicupstate]

Indeed. It will be interesting to see how this one turns out. Lots of moving parts here. 

[gman430]

21 hours ago, vicupstate said:

There will be a public meeting on this project on MONDAY, March 4 from 6:30-8:30 pm at the Kroc Center. 

Several neighborhood associations and groups are seeking to preserve the McClaren building as a functional building and not just as a 'monument/memorial'.  The plan as it stands now is that only the font 30 feet-50 feet of the building would be moved and it would not have a roof.    

I’m confused. Which building is the McClaren one? Is it the old Ballentine equipment one at the intersection of Rhett and Wardlaw or is it the old art gallery building further down Rhett? 

Edited February 23, 2019 by gman430

[vicupstate]

3 hours ago, gman430 said:

I’m confused. Which building is the McClaren one? Is it the old Ballentine equipment one at the intersection of Rhett and Wardlaw or is it the old art gallery building further down Rhett? 

Old Art Gallery which is close to but not at the Academy/Wardlaw intersection. 

[gman430]

“Staff believes the site design and proposed architectural massing is well thought and complementary to the area. However, there are many outstanding issues related to the proposed site plan, which include the burial of power lines, the ownership of and subsequent approval for the off-site proposal for a park to include the McClaren Clinic building and the resolution of continued funding and maintenance of the proposed park/McClaren Clinic building site. Until these externalities are finalized, a formal review for approval will be recommended for denial by staff.”

More info: https://www.greenvillesc.gov/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Item/6075?fileID=25710

Edited March 1, 2019 by gman430