Church at Haynie Streets.

[gman430 9542]

Trees marked and coming down. Brand new survey stakes up all over the place. Fresh utility spray paint markings all over the roads. This is on both sides of Haynie Street next to Church Street. 

 

“If you build it they will come. They will ALL come.”
 

 

 

Edited February 3 by gman430

[GvilleSC 455]

Interesting -- perhaps just removing trees prior to the City's new tree ordinance is enforced?   Kidding -- it may already be in place and enforceable. 

[gman430 9542]

15 minutes ago, GvilleSC said:

Interesting -- perhaps just removing trees prior to the City's new tree ordinance is enforced?   Kidding -- it may already be in place and enforceable. 

Lol. I think it’s more than that going off the survey stakes and spray paint markings. At least I hope so. 

Edited February 3 by gman430

[distortedlogic 404]

Thats a big parcel, what's going here?

[GvilleSC 455]

14 minutes ago, distortedlogic said:

Thats a big parcel, what's going here?

Dunno, but I sure hope the neighborhood likes it... Looking at you, County Square and your oversized skyscrapers.  

[gman430 9542]

18 minutes ago, distortedlogic said:

Thats a big parcel, what's going here?

Hopefully not Walmart. Who owns the site @vicupstate?

Edited February 3 by gman430

[vicupstate 773]

37 minutes ago, gman430 said:

Hopefully not Walmart. Who owns the site @vicupstate?

David Stone/ Stone family.  Walmart has already been burned once for trying to build in Haynie-Sirrine.  That land is heavily restricted.  My guess would be residential or mixed use with mostly residential, assuming that it is actually being developed.      

[gman430 9542]

And so it begins. 

[Danmire 79]

179 apartments

[gman430 9542]

11 minutes ago, Danmire said:

179 apartments

Hopefully it’s not just suburban designed and laid out low income apartments but I’m worried it will be. 

[GVLover 160]

14 minutes ago, Danmire said:

179 apartments

179 doesn't seem like a lot of density considering the size of the site or am I just being a high-density hawk?

Edited April 28 by GVLover

[GMoxley 20]

43 minutes ago, gman430 said:

And so it begins. 

 

21 minutes ago, Danmire said:

179 apartments

Any design or layout public yet?

[gman430 9542]

5 minutes ago, GMoxley said:

 

Any design or layout public yet?

Not yet. DRB meeting for it is May 4th so we should on that day. 

[GvilleSC 455]

43 minutes ago, gman430 said:

Hopefully it’s not just suburban designed and laid out low income apartments but I’m worried it will be. 

Agenda says it's 5.27 acres for 179 apartments. I'm not sure how that compares to other developments in terms of size.

[GvilleSC 455]

30 minutes ago, GvilleSC said:

Agenda says it's 5.27 acres for 179 apartments. I'm not sure how that compares to other developments in terms of size.

It seems that the Agfa site on Academy Street is 4.78 acres. They're proposing various uses on that site, including 230 apartments, a hotel and office space. Still difficult to compare and understand how they may be laying out this site. I'm afraid we may be getting a layout similar to the backside of Southridge. 

[distortedlogic 404]

Sigh. Instead of building 27 projects with  179 apts, why doesn't somebody think to consolidate a few of these and do something unique, groundbreaking,  and, you know... tall?

[gman430 9542]

The meeting this morning is at 9am. Info to watch is at top of this page: https://www.greenvillesc.gov/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/_05042021-2650

[gman430 9542]

X

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited May 4 by gman430

[GvilleSC 455]

2 hours ago, gman430 said:

The meeting this morning is at 9am. Info to watch is at top of this page: https://www.greenvillesc.gov/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/_05042021-2650

I thought the site layout was actually fairly decent, but the designs of the actual buildings are awful looking. 

[vicupstate 773]

Four story  building that fronts on the respective streets (Ackley and Laurens).  PUD with MF.  I like the site plan but the architecture is wretched awful, IMO.  Think Soviet block style.  Doesn't fit the residential area behind it at all.    

Just now, vicupstate said:

 

Wrong thread

[SteveHarveyOswald 1]

2 minutes ago, GvilleSC said:

I thought the site layout was actually fairly decent, but the designs of the actual buildings are awful looking. 

The architecture would be fine for an inward-facing suburban apartment complex, but not for a public-facing development this close to downtown. 

[gman430 9542]

I agree with everybody else. The height is good along with the site plan (I believe there is retail space included) but the architecture definitely needs changing. 

Edited May 4 by gman430

[ingvegas 15]

Hard to make a quick profit, but anyone else wish these developers would be in a war to build the most beautiful buildings instead of the fastest dollar?  Isn't that what set off the tremendous architecture in Chicago? 

The city and county should create an award to give to the best development - and throw in some tax breaks to the winner.  

[GvilleSC 455]

56 minutes ago, ingvegas said:

Hard to make a quick profit, but anyone else wish these developers would be in a war to build the most beautiful buildings instead of the fastest dollar?  Isn't that what set off the tremendous architecture in Chicago? 

The city and county should create an award to give to the best development - and throw in some tax breaks to the winner.  

The problem is some people think the recreation of ruins in Mauldin is beautiful. Some people don’t. That would be a rather swampy game to play with developers. 

[apaladin 114]

19 hours ago, ingvegas said:

Hard to make a quick profit, but anyone else wish these developers would be in a war to build the most beautiful buildings instead of the fastest dollar?  Isn't that what set off the tremendous architecture in Chicago? 

The city and county should create an award to give to the best development - and throw in some tax breaks to the winner.  

Those are pretty ugly.