Charlanta

[CLT_sc]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.greenvilleonline.com/amp/2438604001

Does this letter reflect most of the thinking in Greenville?   

I do hear a lot of references in the upstate about not wanting to be like Charlotte or Atlanta, as suggested by the writer.  However, Greenville is really not in a place to be thought of that way.  And, that is not bad, it’s just different.  We could go through all of the math differences, but it really comes down to Greenville being more of a manufacturing driven economy compared with Charlotte and Atlanta.  And, the growth of Charlotte (not sure about ATL) simply doubles or more the rates you see in Greenville, so I am not sure why someone in Greenville would write this.  

Is there a lot of pressure to approve any project outside of downtown and that is perceived to be how it is done in Charlotte or Atlanta?

[GvilleSC]

I can't read the article due to the pay wall, but I find it interesting (not surprising) that you've sought this out to read and start a discussion. If you're strictly concerned with growth rates (math comment), then you're missing the point of anyone saying that they don't want to be like Charlotte and Atlanta. So, the discussion really ends there. 

The Upstate needs strong planning to really control where and how growth happens, and preserve as much of our natural assets that we love. But, the City of Greenville (or any individual body of government) can only do so much if Greenville, Anderson, or Spartanburg County want to just run wild and free. The Bass Pro Shops deal in Spartanburg County was a case of capturing development simply for the dollar signs. Similarly, the Panthers moving their HQ to South Carolina should NOT have received tax credits from the state simply to generate sprawl and traffic in Charlotte. But, there was nothing preventing it from happening.

 

[distortedlogic]

17 minutes ago, GvilleSC said:

I can't read the article due to the pay wall, but I find it interesting (not surprising) that you've sought this out to read and start a discussion. If you're strictly concerned with growth rates (math comment), then you're missing the point of anyone saying that they don't want to be like Charlotte and Atlanta. So, the discussion really ends there. 

The Upstate needs strong planning to really control where and how growth happens, and preserve as much of our natural assets that we love. But, the City of Greenville (or any individual body of government) can only do so much if Greenville, Anderson, or Spartanburg County want to just run wild and free. The Bass Pro Shops deal in Spartanburg County was a case of capturing development simply for the dollar signs. Similarly, the Panthers moving their HQ to South Carolina should NOT have received tax credits from the state simply to generate sprawl and traffic in Charlotte. But, there was nothing preventing it from happening.

 

Good post. You can read it if you go incognito. 

To CLT, I admit, I too, am suspicious of your motive here.  The article doesn't say anything about wanting to become like Charlotte or Atlanta, or even not wanting to become like Charlotte or Atlanta. The only allusion is the "Charlanta" label as it implies to sprawl. Both Altanta and Charlotte are known regionally for a certain amount of sprawl and poor planning. This is an opinion letter from a resident about concerns of Greenville county planning (or lack thereof).  He simply seems to want Greenville County planners to plan better and not allow just any developments any place at any time.  The fact of the matter is Greenville County (and surrounding counties) have suffered from sprawl and poor planning over the past several decades and he is making a plea for smarter growth. Greenville county has nearly doubled in population since 1980 and it's not slowing down anytime soon; plus Sptg and Anderson counties are seeing stronger growth numbers as well. Good growth planning is probably a good idea as the metro passes beyond 1MM and the CSA passes beyond 1.5MM. The way we grow and plan now will affect future decades and generations. 

[Den2Gvl]

36 minutes ago, GvilleSC said:

I can't read the article due to the pay wall, but I find it interesting (not surprising) that you've sought this out to read and start a discussion. If you're strictly concerned with growth rates (math comment), then you're missing the point of anyone saying that they don't want to be like Charlotte and Atlanta. So, the discussion really ends there. 

The Upstate needs strong planning to really control where and how growth happens, and preserve as much of our natural assets that we love. But, the City of Greenville (or any individual body of government) can only do so much if Greenville, Anderson, or Spartanburg County want to just run wild and free. The Bass Pro Shops deal in Spartanburg County was a case of capturing development simply for the dollar signs. Similarly, the Panthers moving their HQ to South Carolina should NOT have received tax credits from the state simply to generate sprawl and traffic in Charlotte. But, there was nothing preventing it from happening.

 

You can open the Greenville News using "incognito mode" and you can bypass the pay wall. 

[CLT_sc]

26 minutes ago, GvilleSC said:

I can't read the article due to the pay wall, but I find it interesting (not surprising) that you've sought this out to read and start a discussion. If you're strictly concerned with growth rates (math comment), then you're missing the point of anyone saying that they don't want to be like Charlotte and Atlanta. So, the discussion really ends there. 

The Upstate needs strong planning to really control where and how growth happens, and preserve as much of our natural assets that we love. But, the City of Greenville (or any individual body of government) can only do so much if Greenville, Anderson, or Spartanburg County want to just run wild and free. The Bass Pro Shops deal in Spartanburg County was a case of capturing development simply for the dollar signs. Similarly, the Panthers moving their HQ to South Carolina should NOT have received tax credits from the state simply to generate sprawl and traffic in Charlotte. But, there was nothing preventing it from happening.

 

First, you baked a lot of assumptions into your comments, no point in being judge mental. The writer, in short says that extensive planning is needed so Greenville doesn’t become another Charlotte or Atlanta, Charlanta.  And, based on being in the upstate extensively, I see it mentioned a lot in the media.  

Managing medium levels of growth are very different than the much higher levels you see in Charlotte, so I don’t agree that the discussion ends there, it’s really the beginning of the process.  Charlotte gains about 50-60k new residents annually, close in size to the city of Greenville.  Managing that is way different than what you see in Greenville.  So, I am curious to see why there are many references to Charlotte and Atlanta.

Planning is very important in maintaining a balance between what you see on Woodruff Rd and Main St.  Or, the Westgate area compared with Morgan Square.  However, saying “we don’t want to be like Charlotte” is a shallow argument.

It may not appear that way, but Charlotte has a lot of planning in place such as TOD and other mechanisms throughout the county.  However, when you are adding 50k + residents each year, it is a challenge to keep up.  Can planning really make a difference with that number of new residents?  Scaled planning is how the writer should approach the question of growth.  How do you plan in Greenville?  It should not be how do we not become Charlotte.

Why are you against incentives for the Panthers?   Do you still live in S.C.? 

[gman]

It’s not an article.  It’s just a letter to the editor voicing an opinion. It’s really no big deal. Reminds me of the opinion from the Greensboro person published last week. However, it does seem the Greenville News might have an agenda. That said, probably only 12 people read this opinion letter. 

[gman430]

Never heard of Charlanta before. Must be one of them new planned cities in China. 

[ingvegas]

Getting the general public to buy into stopping sprawl should presented as a tax issue and a transportation issue.  

The county would penalize developers who create sprawl with significantly higher development taxes, and give incentive to developers who take advantage of infill opportunities with mixed use multi-story buildings with significantly higher tax credits, then the tax code will steer development away from sprawl. infill is more expensive upfront on the developer, but it will save tax payers in the long-run because we are not building more roads, utilities, and extending government services by miles. 

This saves tax-payer money and should be marketed to the tax payer as getting more bang for their tax-dollar. 

Money is saved by not "building-out" cheap cookie-cutter developments.  Transportation gets worse when these developments all lead into shop-in-a-box centers. A better long-term investment is infill. Once that happens then money can be spent by "builiding-in" and improving the current structure with better roads, better schools, more / better parks, etc. 

https://www.facebook.com/UpstateForever/videos/393695228150043/

 

[CLT_sc]

18 hours ago, ingvegas said:

Getting the general public to buy into stopping sprawl should presented as a tax issue and a transportation issue.  

The county would penalize developers who create sprawl with significantly higher development taxes, and give incentive to developers who take advantage of infill opportunities with mixed use multi-story buildings with significantly higher tax credits, then the tax code will steer development away from sprawl. infill is more expensive upfront on the developer, but it will save tax payers in the long-run because we are not building more roads, utilities, and extending government services by miles. 

This saves tax-payer money and should be marketed to the tax payer as getting more bang for their tax-dollar. 

Money is saved by not "building-out" cheap cookie-cutter developments.  Transportation gets worse when these developments all lead into shop-in-a-box centers. A better long-term investment is infill. Once that happens then money can be spent by "builiding-in" and improving the current structure with better roads, better schools, more / better parks, etc. 

https://www.facebook.com/UpstateForever/videos/393695228150043/

 

This approach would definitely help.  Creating incentives for  developers to build in a city v the suburbs does help the city with cost avoidance.  The issue becomes hard when you look at high growth rates and taxing real estate based on valuations.