CONSTRUCTION THREAD: ONE Greenville (Main @ Washington)

[gs3]

Bump.

Anyone hearing any updates on this one. I know the economy will slow this one down, but it has now been more than 6 months since the announcement and we really have not heard any updates.

Do remember the developer of this project was very upfront and said no tenants had been lined up. The development would progress as tenants came on line. I didn't have any expectation of anything for at least a year. The timetable expectation was set pretty low from the start.

[gman430]

Do remember the developer of this project was very upfront and said no tenants had been lined up. The development would progress as tenants came on line. I didn't have any expectation of anything for at least a year. The timetable expectation was set pretty low from the start.

This time it isn't the developers who don't have the money, it's the tenants according to this article from the Greenville Journal: http://www.journalwatchdog.com/index.php?o...5&Itemid=45

[apaladin]

This time it isn't the developers who don't have the money, it's the tenants according to this article from the Greenville Journal: http://www.journalwatchdog.com/index.php?o...5&Itemid=45

Build the buiding or at least start it and tenants will come. It will be impossible to find tenants willing to sit at least 2 years while a building gets built.

[gvegascple]

This site has been vacant for what 15 years now? It makes the middle of the downtown area look terrible. How about someone tear this ugly thing down and create a park that integrates with the Piazza de Bergamo in the mean time. If this project is years from starting like many others, it would be nice to see that space used for something that draws more shoppers and diners downtown instead of what currently must leave a bad impression to visitors.

[distortedlogic]

This site has been vacant for what 15 years now? It makes the middle of the downtown area look terrible. How about someone tear this ugly thing down and create a park that integrates with the Piazza de Bergamo in the mean time. If this project is years from starting like many others, it would be nice to see that space used for something that draws more shoppers and diners downtown instead of what currently must leave a bad impression to visitors.

Couldn't agree more. As good as our city planners are at some things, they are equally as bad at others; ie tackling glaring eyesores and such that sit around for decades! This site (Woolworth building), Green monster, hole beside Kimbrell's building, Green monster beside Army-Navy. And now we have the Peacock foundation that has been added.

[gman430]

And who would pay for this park? Cousins Properties sure wouldn't. The city doesn't have the money either.

Edited March 28, 2009 by citylife

[vicupstate]

Couldn't agree more. As good as our city planners are at some things, they are equally as bad at others; ie tackling glaring eyesores and such that sit around for decades! This site (Woolworth building), Green monster, hole beside Kimbrell's building, Green monster beside Army-Navy. And now we have the Peacock foundation that has been added.

These are private properties, the city is very limited in what it can do about them. As bad as Woolworth may look, it is better than a large vacant lot. No one is going to landscape a park just to tear it all out in a year or two.

[Greenville]

I agree, if Cousins has the money to construct the development then they should do it. It is definitely an "if you build it, they will come" sort of thing. I realize that it could be a risk, but it's also a risk to sit on the property and hope that enough of the right people will be interested in being tenants.

Edited March 30, 2009 by Greenville

[vicupstate]

There is already 'ready to move in' space DT, about 300,000 sq.ft. I believe. The economy is tanking, and Cousins will need to borrow the money, which no one will lend them without signed leases.

[gvegascple]

The city could sign a 3-5 year agreement to lease the land from Cousins. This way Cousins could make some money for their investors and the city could turn an eyesore into an attraction. To turn a lot into a park could be done on a low budget and could be funded from private donations/fundraisers or an event (or events) planned to take place within the space. This is not rocket science.

[vicupstate]

The city could sign a 3-5 year agreement to lease the land from Cousins. This way Cousins could make some money for their investors and the city could turn an eyesore into an attraction. To turn a lot into a park could be done on a low budget and could be funded from private donations/fundraisers or an event (or events) planned to take place within the space. This is not rocket science.

If something could be built cheap that would be a genuine attraction, it would have already been built -- somewhere else. Planting grass and shrubs is about all that could be done. The city is not going to sell 15 or 20 year bonds for something that will last 3-5 years. All the while the Cousins project can't proceed because the land is under lease. A gapping hole creating by leveling a full city block would be an even bigger eyesore.

[gvegascple]

If something could be built cheap that would be a genuine attraction, it would have already been built -- somewhere else.

Correct, and they have. There's a giant ugly run down building in the way in this spot though. Otherwise, you couldnt ask for a better locaiton.

Planting grass and shrubs is about all that could be done. The city is not going to sell 15 or 20 year bonds for something that will last 3-5 years. All the while the Cousins project can't proceed because the land is under lease. A gapping hole creating by leveling a full city block would be an even bigger eyesore.

I never suggested someone replace the bulding with a "gapping" hole, that is rediculous. Also, its not the entire block, its about half, the other half already is a hardscaped piazza and what is currently there is a condemmed building and a parking lot. Anythng short of the "gapping hole" notion or perhaps a moutain of burning tires would be an improvement.

[goodbye]

Why argue about such a minor issue? If the vacant former Woolworth's building hurts your eyes, I suggest walking on the other side of the street and not looking over that way. Sure it isn't nearly the best use of the property, but I can think of many worse things to look at. Have you ever noticed that people don't typically mention this particular portion of Main Street when raving about how beautiful downtown Greenville is? In other words, it really hasn't been a major stumbling block for the city thus far, despite needing attention.

[gvegascple]

Why argue about such a minor issue? If the vacant former Woolworth's building hurts your eyes, I suggest walking on the other side of the street and not looking over that way. Sure it isn't nearly the best use of the property, but I can think of many worse things to look at.

Its not that it hurts my eyes, its that it has been a waste of space for going on 15 years now. And yes, I have had out of town guests comment on it by they way, its sort of hard to miss, espcially when windows have been smashed out in it and it looks like a transplant from a ghetto. I would also rather not look at is as a minor issue (to look at) and instead look at as a minor investment to dramatically improve our downtown experience when, during these economic challenges, all the big projects are on hold indefinately. The notion of using pocket parks to cheaply turn eyesores into attractions is being done all over the U.S. I would hate to adopt whatever mindset we got into 15 years ago and then look back 15 years from now on what would then be over a quarter century of having a condemed building squarely in the center of downtown Greenville. At some point, you have to think differently.

Have you ever noticed that people don't typically mention this particular portion of Main Street when raving about how beautiful downtown Greenville is?

EXACTLY, they DONT. Edited March 30, 2009 by gvegascple

[gman430]

Why argue about such a minor issue? If the vacant former Woolworth's building hurts your eyes, I suggest walking on the other side of the street and not looking over that way. Sure it isn't nearly the best use of the property, but I can think of many worse things to look at. Have you ever noticed that people don't typically mention this particular portion of Main Street when raving about how beautiful downtown Greenville is? In other words, it really hasn't been a major stumbling block for the city thus far, despite needing attention.

How exactly is this a minor issue? What defines a major issue? Going around with that mentality is not the way to get things done in any city in my opinion.

Edited March 30, 2009 by citylife

[Greenville]

How exactly is this a minor issue? What defines a major issue? Going around with that mentality is not the way to get things done in any city in my opinion.

When you're dealing with an entire city block, it's never a minor issue.

[gvegascple]

When you're dealing with an entire city block, it's never a minor issue.

I agree that there are lots of issues with converting/reclaiming unused space downtown into something positive while we wait for projects to get off the ground, but it seems to be such a waste to do nothing at all in the meantime. The area of Main street past Main and Washington would benefit greatly from something in that location that drew people aside from Downtown Alive and Friday Jazz which are excellent at drawing crowds. Pocket parks, or an expanded daily urban market could draw people downtown everynight and on weekends, even without planned events. If done right, a market could help those that are out of work sell art and crafts as well as frutit and vegatables during these hard times. This would help keep our downtown restaurants and shops afloat too.

I guess what I am saying is that I would like to see our city at least attempt to turn lemons into lemonade, and this spot, among others downtown, is a big fat lemon right now.

[Easley_truckfarm_gorilla 2]

Though I also hate looking at that building, I feel that it should be left as is until a new structre is ready to go up with proper financial backing. By tearing the building down, the street frontage (or street wall) is interrupted. I know, I know there isn't much value the building is offering as far as aesthetics, but it still provides a sense of enclosure that is vital to mainstreet. I'm also not crazy about the idea of tearing down a building to build a small park that wouldn't last more than a couple of years. I could think of plenty other places in Greenville that could use the money for a small park. Ugga Boogga

[distortedlogic]

Though I also hate looking at that building, I feel that it should be left as is until a new structre is ready to go up with proper financial backing. By tearing the building down, the street frontage (or street wall) is interrupted. I know, I know there isn't much value the building is offering as far as aesthetics, but it still provides a sense of enclosure that is vital to mainstreet. I'm also not crazy about the idea of tearing down a building to build a small park that wouldn't last more than a couple of years. I could think of plenty other places in Greenville that could use the money for a small park. Ugga Boogga

I would agree with this but for a couple of points. For one, I don't think it would that much additional expense. Remember that the existing structure will have to be torn down eventually anyway, and it will probably be cheaper now that when (if) the project happens. And the Bookend II site put in a little grass area with a few trees, which would suffuce here as well, and look much beter than what is there and much better than a span of asphalut. And the second point, I would almost garantee it will be more than "a year or two." When was the last time a parcel like this got developed in a year or two in Gville. A couple of years was the original time frame for the old Auditorium site and that was 12 years ago. This Woolworth site has been as it is for what, 15 years? And there are many other examples. It may well be 5-10 years before anything happens.

[GvilleSC]

I honestly don't think I have ever seen anyone actually USING the Bookends II "park" space. Sure, it looks better than red clay or a wall perhaps, but if it's not utilized, then is it worth having? I'm not so sure.

Didn't Riverplace "on a parcel like this" start within a year or two? It was probably merely months. The baseball stadium and Fieldhouse seemed to have started within that timeframe as well.

[gs3]

Though I also hate looking at that building, I feel that it should be left as is until a new structre is ready to go up with proper financial backing. By tearing the building down, the street frontage (or street wall) is interrupted.

Excellent point. Agreed.

Tearing down buildings was a mistake cities made in the 70's....we don't want to repeat that mistake.

Say we go ahead and tear down the Woolworth building and then the development falls through. We would be left with an empty lot. Leave the building, should the development fall through, who knows, the building could be redone and subdivided into retail space, etc. IMO, tearing down buildings with no firm plans for immediate replacement in an urban environment is rarely a good idea.

[Greenville]

And the second point, I would almost garantee it will be more than "a year or two." When was the last time a parcel like this got developed in a year or two in Gville. A couple of years was the original time frame for the old Auditorium site and that was 12 years ago. This Woolworth site has been as it is for what, 15 years? And there are many other examples. It may well be 5-10 years before anything happens.

I realize that your job is to balance the perspective of the sunshine pumpers, but I don't think we should be so pessimistic about this development. You are guaranteeing that it will be more than a year or two before this project begins construction?!? So 2011 is the earliest you think it will break ground? And you think it might be 5-10 years before anything happens?!? Really?

I realize that there have been some other developments that did not materialize, but they were in a different situation than this one. First, developments like Gateway have struggled because local developers purchased the land and did not know what to do with it. The Woolworth site is owned by Cousins Properties, and they have a track record of large, successful, urban developments in large cities (e.g., B of A building in Atlanta).

Second, this development is not being held up by financing struggles. The building is already financed. So the delay is not due to funding, but to finding the right mix of tenants before proceeding with construction. As gsupstate mentioned in a previous post, Cousins has been shopping this development nationally at trade shows and conventions in search of tenants. They aren't trying to fill this spot with mom and pop places or retailers with narrow niches. In all honesty, this is the perfect type of development for national retailers because of its central location downtown and new construction. It will literally change our downtown for the better, and national companies know it.

Finally, you state that the Woolworth site has been what it is for 15 years. That isn't entirely accurate, because the building was essentially "undevelopable" until last year. If you will recall, the parcel was divided into very small segments, with various individuals owning very small segments of the property. It took a great deal of time for one person to buy each piece. Cousins has worked hard to do that over the years, which shows me how committed they are to creating a dynamic development here.

I understand that bad news regarding the economy is everywhere we turn, but developments are still happening. It might take a little longer for this thing to take off, but no way can it be guaranteed that this will take more than 2 years to begin construction. In fact, I will be very surprised if demolition doesn't start within the next two years.

Edited April 2, 2009 by Greenville

[gvegascple]

Excellent point. Agreed.

Tearing down buildings was a mistake cities made in the 70's....we don't want to repeat that mistake.

Tearing down good buildings that had architectural presence? No that is a terrible idea, and yes it was done in the 70's. We are talking about something completely different; tearing down eyesores and condemed buildings. We need to be thinking within the same context and not using inappropriate examples that are not pertinent to the discussion just to prove a point

Say we go ahead and tear down the Woolworth building and then the development falls through. We would be left with an empty lot. Leave the building, should the development fall through, who knows, the building could be redone and subdivided into retail space, etc. IMO, tearing down buildings with no firm plans for immediate replacement in an urban environment is rarely a good idea.

Put retail in a condemned building? Is this mic on? Again, no one ever suggested replacing buildings with holes, vacant lots, or indian burial grounds. The discussion is about turning wasted space into usable space and using novel approaches to improve the city.

Edited April 2, 2009 by gvegascple

[Greenville]

Tearing down good buildings that had architectural presence? No that is a terrible idea, and yes it was done in the 70's. We are talking about something completely different; tearing down eyesores and condemend buildings. We need to be thinking within the same context and not using inappropriate examples that are not pertinent to the discussion just to prove a point

Put retail in a condemned building? Is this mic on? Again, no one ever suggested replacing buildings with holes, vacant lots, or indian burial grounds. The discussion is about turning wasted space into usable space and using novel approaches to improve the city.

If this development is going to take 5-10 years to happen, as distortedlogic seems to think, then I would be all for tearing down the existing structure and opening a park. But I honestly believe that this development will happen sooner rather than later. Remember, they will probably start working even if they are only able to get a tenant for the hotel highrise or the office highrise. It won't take both. And all it takes is one hotel or one office tenant to make this happen, which is not a tall order in one of the best metros to weather the economic storm.

[distortedlogic]

I realize that your job is to balance the perspective of the sunshine pumpers, but I don't think we should be so pessimistic about this development. You are guaranteeing that it will be more than a year or two before this project begins construction?!? So 2011 is the earliest you think it will break ground? Really?

You are pretty much on target. I am not so much insisting that we need to tear it down and build a park, moreso I am playing devil's advocate here. With the track record of highrises (keyword here, which excludes things like West End Field and Riverplace, etc) over the past 15 years, it very well could be many years before it materializes. SO if so, do we want to see boarded up and rotting buildings for that amount of time? Would this site continue to decay while other parts of main st buslte? Maybe it will be next year and maybe not. As for the Bookends II park, I have never seen anyone there either, but I think it is an aesthetics thing, and it does look much better than what could be there.