301 College Street High-rise mixed use development

[GvilleSC]

7 hours ago, vicupstate said:

If the Beach Company had not cannibalized the parking by selling off the townhouse parcel, then I bet a grocer would have gone into the Loft building.  It is a great location for one, especially with the tower now going in. Oh well. 

There is a whole block across Buncombe Street from this tower that has sat empty for decades.  Maybe something will finally happen there. 

Fair, but I’m happy that the townhouses were built versus a parking lot. It might also have spurred this proposed development in order to assist in making the entire development “work”.
 

Is this next phase why they scrapped the original proposal to turn the office building into apartments? I’m happy that things have turned out the way they have. 

[PuppiesandKittens]

21 hours ago, vicupstate said:

If the Beach Company had not cannibalized the parking by selling off the townhouse parcel, then I bet a grocer would have gone into the Loft building.  It is a great location for one, especially with the tower now going in. Oh well. 

There is a whole block across Buncombe Street from this tower that has sat empty for decades.  Maybe something will finally happen there. 

For low-density areas in the edges of downtown, “everyday” retailers that need lots of space would be great.  So many big-box chains with locations on Woodruff Road and at Haywood Mall are losing sales from the affluent areas in and around downtown just because it’s a pain to drive out to Woodruff Road; ordering online is much easier.  Target, Lowe’s, etc. (even Belk, Dillard’s, Macy’s), that means you!  Charlotte and Atlanta have big-box retailers at the edges of their downtowns, and Greenville has shown that it’ll work here, too, with McBee Station.

Edited December 24, 2022 by PuppiesandKittens

[GVLover]

On 12/21/2022 at 3:43 PM, gman430 said:

  
 

Beach Company is the developer. Looks like it will be the second tallest building downtown. 

https://www.greenvillesc.gov/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Item/10240?fileID=56706

It's a travesty that Greenville News has yet to report on this. They can do decent local journalism at times, then completely drop the ball at others. 

[PuppiesandKittens]

26 minutes ago, GVLover said:

It's a travesty that Greenville News has yet to report on this. They can do decent local journalism at times, then completely drop the ball at others. 

The Greenville News seems to either report on things after the Post and Courier does (real estate projects) or not report on them at all (William Timmons’ issues lately).  And when it reports on them, the articles have typos in them.  Even my grandmother’s name was misspelled in her obituary, and it’s a simple and common four-letter name.  What gives?

[gman430]

Gotta love all of the NIMBY’s against this project on social media not realizing developments like this downtown actually help combat suburban sprawl and the traffic it brings. 

Edited December 26, 2022 by gman430

[gman430]

This project isn’t going to get approved. There are just too many people on social media against it. Sad.  Wish all of these NIMBY’s would move back to Asheville. People just don’t seem to understand how this project would be a good thing. They just think it’s going to block out the sun and mountains while making traffic worse. 

[cabelagent]

1 hour ago, gman430 said:

This project isn’t going to get approved. There are just too many people on social media against it. Sad.  Wish all of these NIMBY’s would move back to Asheville. People just don’t seem to understand how this project would be a good thing. They just think it’s going to block out the sun and mountains while making traffic worse. 

Yadda-yadda-yadda…

[chuckyvt]

4 hours ago, gman430 said:

This project isn’t going to get approved. There are just too many people on social media against it. Sad.  Wish all of these NIMBY’s would move back to Asheville. People just don’t seem to understand how this project would be a good thing. They just think it’s going to block out the sun and mountains while making traffic worse. 

Well perhaps we need to start a YIMBY group to contour it.  

[Horatio Nelson]

10 hours ago, chuckyvt said:

Well perhaps we need to start a YIMBY group to contour it.  

I mean you joke, but commenting when there is an official comment period, and showing up to open meetings when things like this are presented is indeed how you push back. And the more the merrier (an official group helps with organizing).

Edited December 27, 2022 by Horatio Nelson

[gman430]

3 hours ago, Horatio Nelson said:

I mean you joke, but commenting when there is an official comment period, and showing up to open meetings when things like this are presented is indeed how you push back. And the more the merrier (an official group helps with organizing).

You’re right. That’s why it’s been such a struggle to get Woven and Mosaic approved. Seems like only people that are against the projects ever show up to these meetings and let their voices heard. Not sure why nobody from this forum that supports them ever does. 

Edited December 27, 2022 by gman430

[Horatio Nelson]

31 minutes ago, gman430 said:

You’re right. That’s why it’s been such a struggle to get Woven and Mosaic approved. Seems like only people that are against the projects ever show up to these meetings and let their voices heard. Not sure why nobody from this forum that supports them ever does. 

I've come to one planning meeting, but have forgotten the other times I've meant to. That's on me!

Maybe we should have a pinned thread of just important upcoming meetings? That people should think about attending if they want to advocate for a specific outcome?

I know this info is distributed in various separate threads but due to the nature of forums that gets buried fast.

Edited December 27, 2022 by Horatio Nelson

[gman430]

Send your emails about how you support this project here: 

[email protected]

Staff Contact:  Alyson Smith, Senior Development Planner for DRB. 

Edited December 27, 2022 by gman430

[ingvegas]

Brick, metal, and glass. Love the material. I hope the height pleases the height-hopium users, here. I think it's a well thought out and planned addition. 

I do wonder how the only entrance/exit being on Buncombe will impact traffic entering downtown. 

[gman]

4 hours ago, ingvegas said:

Brick, metal, and glass. Love the material. I hope the height pleases the height-hopium users, here. I think it's a well thought out and planned addition. 

I do wonder how the only entrance/exit being on Buncombe will impact traffic entering downtown. 

I wonder the same about the entrance and exits. I worked at BB&T and attended meetings there. It was a nightmare to get in and out of that garage. Improvements will need to be made. 

[gman430]

There will be entrance and exit on College Street not only on Buncombe. Notice the arrows in the below pic. But yes, traffic will be an issue especially if the office building gets filled during rush hour. Maybe they could add a right turn only onto the Academy Street side. 

Edited December 28, 2022 by gman430

[StrangeCock]

4 hours ago, gman said:

I wonder the same about the entrance and exits. I worked at BB&T and attended meetings there. It was a nightmare to get in and out of that garage. Improvements will need to be made. 

That was the weirdest damn parking garage I've ever been in. 

[gman430]

Everybody is sure going to love #1. Luckily, the current proposal already has the setbacks and material changes that the DRB staff recommends if height can’t be lowered which you can read about below. An underground garage would cause the price of the project to increase substantially. I just don’t see the Beach Company going that route. 
 

Staff recommends approval with the following conditions:

1. The applicant shall work with staff and two DRB members to review potential modifications in height, in an effort to decrease the overall number of stories.

PRI 2 Massing
PRI 2.1 states that a building’s mass, scale, form, floor-to-floor height and horizontal alignment should not be in stark contrast to its surrounding context. Surrounding context should include all buildings located within one block of the proposed development. The proposed building is significantly larger in height than surrounding development, therefore staff recommends further study of options to decrease the height of the building, including but not limited to relocating the parking to subterranean levels. If a decrease in height is not feasible, design guidelines recommend a step- back of 20 feet above the 5th floor. If a step-back of 20 feet cannot be accommodated, a lesser dimension may be acceptable if paired with an appropriate change in material. Staff notes that the building has a significant step back of greater than 20 feet interior to the property. Inward facing, the stepbacks occur in varying locations and at varying depths and accommodate appropriate amenity uses. Facing College and Buncombe streets stepbacks do not exist, but setbacks in excess of 40 feet do exists, providing wide and well articulated pedestrian experiences. Facing Academy, the architecture employs a 5 foot stepback above the fifth floor, but does employ a strong material change, from predominantly brick to predominantly glass. Material changes, retail uses, and “liner townhome units” on the ground floor relate the structure to the pedestrian experience.

2. Street furnishings as well as trash and recycling receptacles shall be installed near areas of high pedestrian traffic.

3. The applicant shall work with Planning and Engineering staff for final streetscape and right-of-way improvements, including installation of pedestrian lighting, and to ensure coordination with the adjacent Cultural Corridor city-led project.

4. The applicant shall work with staff to provide adequate plant selections within the tree lawns on all streets to be reviewed and approved during site permit.

5. The parking garage shall be appropriately screened from the public toward the interior of the development.

6. The applicant shall provide a scaled mockup to showcase how the materials and colors will relate to one another to be reviewed and approved by staff and two DRB members prior to final approval of the CA.

7. Individual CA’s shall be submitted to staff for review and approval for individual sign permits.

8. Applicant shall work with the Arts in Public Places Commission for approval of any public art prior to installation.

9. Applicant shall maintain a safe and designated pedestrian connection along rights- of-way during the construction process.

10. Per the recent Section 19-1.11 LMO Text Amendment, an Affidavit of Substantial Compliance must be signed and notarized by the property owner prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Conformity.

11. This CA is considered part of a specific site development plan. As such, the CA issued for this project shall be subject to Land Management Ordinance Section 19-2.2.14 Lapse of approval/vested rights and the Vested Rights Act, Article 11, of Chapter 29, Title 6, of the Code of Laws of South Carolina, 1976 (S.C. Code §§ 6-29-1510 et seq.). The CA shall be valid for a period of two years from the date of approval by the Board. The Vested Right shall be granted up to five annual extensions upon a written request for an extension that must be received from the applicant at least sixty (60) days before expiration, unless any change or amendment to the land development ordinance or regulations of the City of Greenville’s Code of Ordinances were to be amended that would no longer allow execution of the site-specific development plan. At any time during the two-year period or any subsequent Vested Rights extensions, the applicant may be granted a building permit from the City Building Official. Should the CA expire at any time prior to the application for a building permit, such permit shall not be issued until a current CA is provided.

Edited December 30, 2022 by gman430

[NewlyUpstate]

This is hard to think about because this area of the city is currently so vehicle heavy. I do understand the point about adding set-backs... if the city forsees this area as eventually having pedestrian traffic (maybe some combination of this development + cultural corridor) then having setbacks absolutely makes sense.  As shown, there are already some setbacks within the footprint of the project. Hopefully, this is just a matter of reorienting the project so that the height is not so abrupt on the foreseen pedestrian traffic corridors (primarily Buncombe and College... maybe less so along Academy IMO)

Edited December 30, 2022 by NewlyUpstate

[gman430]

9 minutes ago, NewlyUpstate said:

This is hard to think about because this area of the city is currently so vehicle heavy. I do understand the point about adding set-backs... if the city forsees this area as eventually having pedestrian traffic (maybe some combination of this development + cultural corridor) then having setbacks absolutely makes sense.  As shown, there are already some setbacks within the footprint of the project. Hopefully, this is just a matter of reorienting the project so that the height is not so abrupt on the foreseen pedestrian traffic corridors (primarily Buncombe and College... maybe less so along Academy IMO)

The building proposed already has the setbacks and change of materials required if reduction in height can’t be made. The DRB staff even says the current building proposed is great for the pedestrian realm which is the most important thing with the current members of the board: 

Staff notes that the building has a significant step back of greater than 20 feet interior to the property. Inward facing, the stepbacks occur in varying locations and at varying depths and accommodate appropriate amenity uses. Facing College and Buncombe streets stepbacks do not exist, but setbacks in excess of 40 feet do exists, providing wide and well articulated pedestrian experiences. Facing Academy, the architecture employs a 5 foot stepback above the fifth floor, but does employ a strong material change, from predominantly brick to predominantly glass. Material changes, retail uses, and “liner townhome units” on the ground floor relate the structure to the pedestrian experience.

Edited December 30, 2022 by gman430

[NewlyUpstate]

1 minute ago, gman430 said:

The building proposed already has the setbacks and change of materials required if reduction in height can’t be made. The DRB staff even says the current building proposed is great for the pedestrian realm which is the most important thing with the current members of the board: 

Staff notes that the building has a significant step back of greater than 20 feet interior to the property. Inward facing, the stepbacks occur in varying locations and at varying depths and accommodate appropriate amenity uses. Facing College and Buncombe streets stepbacks do not exist, but setbacks in excess of 40 feet do exists, providing wide and well articulated pedestrian experiences. Facing Academy, the architecture employs a 5 foot stepback above the fifth floor, but does employ a strong material change, from predominantly brick to predominantly glass. Material changes, retail uses, and “liner townhome units” on the ground floor relate the structure to the pedestrian experience.

Thanks - the way the comments are worded are a bit confusing to me.  I took it as - if height reduction is not possible, we will need more setbacks/material changes above the 5th floor, this may not be an issue because here are some places where setbacks already are within the project (essentially, its not clear to me if the noted setbacks are "enough")

[gman430]

6 minutes ago, NewlyUpstate said:

Thanks - the way the comments are worded are a bit confusing to me.  I took it as - if height reduction is not possible, we will need more setbacks/material changes above the 5th floor, this may not be an issue because here are some places where setbacks already are within the project (essentially, its not clear to me if the noted setbacks are "enough")

Yeah, it is confusing. I had to read it a few times myself to get a clear picture. Thank goodness the staff isn’t the board so hopefully the board will approve it without any reduction in height. Like the staff comments say, the setbacks and significant material changes are already there so there is no need to. 

[distortedlogic]

I've never heard of a group of people being so against building height as the DRB. It's not like developers are wanting to build supertalls. I get not wanting a building to look too out of place for it's immediate area but you have to be reasonable in a growing city. We have joked about developers often choosing to build out than up, but I can't help but wonder if the DRB has a reputation that leads developers to automatically propose buildings with less height and more spread. When it comes to height and architecture I just don't get this DRB.

[gman430]

21 minutes ago, distortedlogic said:

I've never heard of a group of people being so against building height as the DRB. It's not like developers are wanting to build supertalls. I get not wanting a building to look too out of place for it's immediate area but you have to be reasonable in a growing city. We have joked about developers often choosing to build out than up, but I can't help but wonder if the DRB has a reputation that leads developers to automatically propose buildings with less height and more spread. When it comes to height and architecture I just don't get this DRB.

These are just staff comments. Has nothing to do with the actual board. Different group of people. The DRB approved Camperdown and Gateway site with no reduction in height. It was the PC that reduced the height of County Square not the DRB. Height isn’t really a big concern anyways with the current board members. The pedestrian realm (width of sidewalks, retail space, plantings, lighting, seating) is the most important issue. 

Also, I emailed the Beach Company and the response back I got was that they have no plans to reduce the height and add an underground garage. They are sticking with their current plans. With how much they worked with city staff before submitting their current proposal I don’t see why they would need to change anything. 

Edited December 30, 2022 by gman430

[GVLer]

I paid more attention to this site when driving by today. The area between Academy and the Canvas building is quite shallow. Ingress and Egress will be problematic. I really really like the design (but hate how Canvas looks in tandem). I hate to say this, but I am not sure this is the right project for that particular site. 

[gman430]

 

52 minutes ago, GVLer said:

I paid more attention to this site when driving by today. The area between Academy and the Canvas building is quite shallow. Ingress and Egress will be problematic. I really really like the design (but hate how Canvas looks in tandem). I hate to say this, but I am not sure this is the right project for that particular site. 

Unless you’re living or working there, I don’t see why this would be an issue to worry about. A traffic impact study is currently being done for the development. What would you propose instead for the site? 

Edited December 30, 2022 by gman430