CONSTRUCTION THREAD: ONE Greenville (Main @ Washington)

[gman430]

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.

Just remember who is building this project. It is not some local developer without financing. This is Cousins Properties which doesn't need any bank financing to build Washington Square. Like John Boyd said, they already have the money to build it. The developers are just waiting for the economy to improve before starting construction like everybody else is. I'd much rather have my tax dollars go to better things then some small park that would be there for less than a year.

Edited April 2, 2009 by citylife

[gs3]

Tearing down good buildings that had architectural presence? No that is a terrible idea, and yes it was done in the 70's. We aretalking 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

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 discussimon is about turning wasted space into usable space and using novel approaches to improve the city.

OK, I didn't realize the Woolworth building was officially "condemned".

Cities have empty buildings......nothing wrong with that. While the building may not be historically significant from an architectural detail point of view, it does have a significance to Greenville life. It was a downtown Woolworth.....harder and harder ro find them still standing. I kind of get a kick peeking in the windows and remembering eating at a Woolworths lunch counter in my hometown as a child.

But, in the context of ETG2's post, I think tearing down this building for a park would be a huge mistake. A park on that corner would suddenly break the urban flow of mainstreet, the shadows, etc. So it's an empty building.....if we've waited for 15 years for a development on that spot, why the rush to demolish it now???? If the development happens, then the buidling will be demolished. If not, then the building remains.

While Washington square will defintely be a huge plus for Main Street, this one building doesn't seem to have been a drag. People still walk by it. Businesses have opened all around it.

If we want more parks downtown, IMO, we plant them in bare parking lots we currently have first.

[Galley]

I would still like to see the lunch counter restored and serve as a mini Greenville civil rights museum. It could be an attraction located in the building's lobby.

[gvegascple]

Cities have empty buildings......nothing wrong with that. While the building may not be historically significant from an architectural detail point of view, it does have a significance to Greenville life. It was a downtown Woolworth.....harder and harder ro find them still standing. I kind of get a kick peeking in the windows and remembering eating at a Woolworths lunch counter in my hometown as a child.

I do understand that everyone see's things differently. Your nostaligic reminder of the past, is another person's urban blight or sign of a depressed area. For all we know, tourists that walk up from the West End turn around when they get to Woolworth's as they may think they are heading into the "bad" part of town. I think we need to follow the 80/20 rule on this though and think about what is best for the city and put the majorities' needs first

But, in the context of ETG2's post, I think tearing down this building for a park would be a huge mistake. A park on that corner would suddenly break the urban flow of mainstreet, the shadows, etc. So it's an empty building.....if we've waited for 15 years for a development on that spot, why the rush to demolish it now???? If the development happens, then the buidling will be demolished. If not, then the building remains.

It's this mentality that has led to no change and I think we need some fresh ideas instead. I was recently in downtown cleveland and they actually have done an excellent job of placing pocket parks both inbetween buildings and out in the open. I also dont think the conversation should be limited to parks either. We need new ideas on how to better use this space. This spot has been a negative for 15 years. At what point do we decide to act?

If we want more parks downtown, IMO, we plant them in bare parking lots we currently have first.

We do need parking lots too. But I agree that there are opportunities in more than one location such as the bookends(II), the Gateway site, the Pinnacle, etc. We just happen to be on the Main at Washington thread.

[btoy]

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).

I could be wrong but I think TIC Properties and John Boyd own this building not Cousins. I think Cousin's is being brought in as a JV Partner on the project, but I would not be surpirsed if they did not actually have any curent ownership in the buildings and land that will make up the project site.

[gs3]

I do understand that everyone see's things differently. Your nostaligic reminder of the past, is another person's urban blight or sign of a depressed area. For all we know, tourists that walk up from the West End turn around when they get to Woolworth's as they may think they are heading into the "bad" part of town. I think we need to follow the 80/20 rule on this though and think about what is best for the city and put the majorities' needs first

It's this mentality that has led to no change and I think we need some fresh ideas instead. I was recently in downtown cleveland and they actually have done an excellent job of placing pocket parks both inbetween buildings and out in the open. I also dont think the conversation should be limited to parks either. We need new ideas on how to better use this space. This spot has been a negative for 15 years. At what point do we decide to act?

We do need parking lots too. But I agree that there are opportunities in more than one location such as the bookends(II), the Gateway site, the Pinnacle, etc. We just happen to be on the Main at Washington thread.

Nobody wants the Woolworths building to stay.

It has sat emtpty for numerous years while downtown has seen a renewal, and its presence has not hindered that downtown renewal. Tourist pass it weekly....downtown Main is always buzzing on the weekends.

There is a development planned for the spot where the Woolworths building is. Why demolish the building now, only to waste money on a temporary park, with small trees, that will not reach maturity? Use that money for a park on one of the already other vacant lots downtown....one of the vacant lots with no chance for a major development.

Edited April 2, 2009 by gsupstate

[vicupstate]

I don't believe the Woolworth building has been condemed as unsafe. I could be wrong, but I don't remember reading/hearing that.

The loss of a sense of enclosure and intimacy was exactly what I was referring to when I spoke previously of a 'gapping hole'.

Lastly, the buildings that got torn down in the '70's were in no worse shape in many cases. Fortunately in some cases, other cities saved their buildings to be restored into something nice later. Compare Columbia's Main St to Greenville's in that regard.

Florence demolished many buildings in the 70's, hoping something new would spring up in their place. Thirty years later the vast majority are still vacant lots or vacant parking lots. It is almost always a mistake to tear down when there are no immenient plans for a replacement.

[GvilleSC]

Lastly, the buildings that got torn down in the '70's were in no worse shape in many cases. Fortunately in some cases, other cities saved their buildings to be restored into something nice later. Compare Columbia's Main St to Greenville's in that regard.

What exactly is the comparison? They don't seem too different to me in that regard.

[krazeeboi]

Good conversation here, guys. While walking down Main on Monday, I could visualize the huge impact Washington Square will have on this part of downtown. But in this current economic climate, I can see why some advocate putting a temporary pocket park/square at that location. But for those who are arguing for such, exactly who should be the one to do this? Cousins? The city?

[krazeeboi]

Also, here's another thought: what if a park or plaza, planned to be temporary in nature, is constructed at the site and it becomes wildly successful? Maybe it wouldn't be as heavily landscaped or ornamental as Greensboro's Center City Park, but given its location, I would imagine that it would see some level of success. It would be pretty awkward to get rid of it, even if it would be for a project as awesome as Washington Square.

[vicupstate]

What exactly is the comparison? They don't seem too different to me in that regard.

The old storefront-style buildings were demolished, whereas Greenville's were not, by and large. The Greenville stores were vacant and boarded up but lived to see 'better days'. Columbia's replaced there with office buildings.

[krazeeboi]

The old storefront-style buildings were demolished, whereas Greenville's were not, by and large. The Greenville stores were vacant and boarded up but lived to see 'better days'. Columbia's replaced there with office buildings.

Maybe that's not the best example of a contrast, especially since in Columbia it was primarily the individual storefront-type buildings in the three-block stretch from Hampton to Gervais that were demolished for multistory office buildings (a lot of the buildings north of Hampton are still standing)--unless your overarching point was in comparing dominant building types and vibrancy when it comes to both Main Streets. But then I could use Tryon Street in uptown Charlotte as a counterexample. In the end, I'd say that it comes down to proper urban form whether the buildings are old or new and a diverse mix of uses, particularly for those that can prove viable past business hours. But I do think that older building types provide a better foundation for revitalization, but that in itself isn't a guarantee.

[gs3]

I don't believe the Woolworth building has been condemed as unsafe. I could be wrong, but I don't remember reading/hearing that.

The loss of a sense of enclosure and intimacy was exactly what I was referring to when I spoke previously of a 'gapping hole'.

Lastly, the buildings that got torn down in the '70's were in no worse shape in many cases. Fortunately in some cases, other cities saved their buildings to be restored into something nice later. Compare Columbia's Main St to Greenville's in that regard.

Florence demolished many buildings in the 70's, hoping something new would spring up in their place. Thirty years later the vast majority are still vacant lots or vacant parking lots. It is almost always a mistake to tear down when there are no immenient plans for a replacement.

Thanks.....I didn't think it had officially be condemed. That leaves options for the building, should Washington Square fail.

Well worded summary of points.

[GvilleSC]

Also, here's another thought: what if a park or plaza, planned to be temporary in nature, is constructed at the site and it becomes wildly successful? Maybe it wouldn't be as heavily landscaped or ornamental as Greensboro's Center City Park, but given its location, I would imagine that it would see some level of success. It would be pretty awkward to get rid of it, even if it would be for a project as awesome as Washington Square.

Oh gosh. I can hear Heidi Aiken now! Yea, let's leave it as a building!

[gvegascple]

Also, here's another thought: what if a park or plaza, planned to be temporary in nature, is constructed at the site and it becomes wildly successful? Maybe it wouldn't be as heavily landscaped or ornamental as Greensboro's Center City Park, but given its location, I would imagine that it would see some level of success. It would be pretty awkward to get rid of it, even if it would be for a project as awesome as Washington Square.

If what you're saying is, it would be bad to have a situation where we have something sucessful, and we replace it with something even more successful, I do not follow your logic. In fact, its my whole point. To take something that is a negative, and create something positive which is then replaced by something even more positive, and so one, and so on. Of course, all the while being mindful of architectural preservation.

Also, to the point that this location will be built next week or next month or very soon just because we have a developer lined up and we've seen a pretty picture of how it might look one day...all I have to say is, GATEWAY, PINNACLE, CAMPERDOWN, TFAB, etc, etc, etc. Each project has its own challenges that include funding, tennants, construction costs, zoning, among many others that I will not pretend to be an expert on. I think this location definately needs a large mixed use project with an anchor retail bookstore, hotel, office space and also integrates extremely well with the Piazza de Bergamo and I can't think of anything better than that. That is my dream for that location. However, there is a TON of of competing unleased office space, hotels being built, others on hold, banks unwilling to lend, and businesses unwilling to expand or relocate. Oh, and this spot has been a broken down building for FIFTEEN YEARS now. I wouldnt be surprised if it even poses an asbestos hazzard on top of everything else.

Edited April 3, 2009 by gvegascple

[gman430]

If what your saying is, it would be bad to have a situation where we have somethign sucessful, and we replace it with something even more successful, I do not follow your logic. In fact, its my whole point. To take something that is a negative, and create something positive which is then replaced by something even more positive, and so one, and so on. Of course, all the while being mindful of architectural preservation.

The park idea sounds like a waste of taxpayer dollars to me. Why build something that would be there for less than a year? We've waited years if not decades for something to get built on this site. What's another year going to hurt? Some people seem to forget who the developer of this project is and that we're in a recession currently.

Edited April 3, 2009 by citylife

[gvegascple]

The park idea sounds like a waste of taxpayer dollars to me. Why build something that would be there for less than a year? We've waited years if not decades for something to get built on this site. What's another year going to hurt? Some people seem to forget who the developer of this project is and that we're in a recession currently.

I think if we were to follow that argument to it's logical end, we would never build anything because something will always replace everything one day. Wait, we are already following that philosophy at this location (and a few others).

Each project has to be measured individually for the return on investment for the time that they exist. If the initial investment is low compared to the return to the city caused by increased tourism and consumer foot traffic, I say its a good idea. Again, comming up with better uses for vacant spots within city centers is nothing new (accept to us, I mean).

[Greenville]

If what you're saying is, it would be bad to have a situation where we have something sucessful, and we replace it with something even more successful, I do not follow your logic. In fact, its my whole point. To take something that is a negative, and create something positive which is then replaced by something even more positive, and so one, and so on. Of course, all the while being mindful of architectural preservation.

Also, to the point that this location will be built next week or next month or very soon just because we have a developer lined up and we've seen a pretty picture of how it might look one day...all I have to say is, GATEWAY, PINNACLE, CAMPERDOWN, TFAB, etc, etc, etc. Each project has its own challenges that include funding, tennants, construction costs, zoning, among many others that I will not pretend to be an expert on. I think this location definately needs a large mixed use project with an anchor retail bookstore, hotel, office space and also integrates extremely well with the Piazza de Bergamo and I can't think of anything better than that. That is my dream for that location. However, there is a TON of of competing unleased office space, hotels being built, others on hold, banks unwilling to lend, and businesses unwilling to expand or relocate. Oh, and this spot has been a broken down building for FIFTEEN YEARS now. I wouldnt be surprised if it even poses an asbestos hazzard on top of everything else.

Again, financing for this project has already been obtained. That is not the issue here. The project could start tomorrow if the developers wanted to. Their only concern is speculative building given the current economic climate. That's not to say that they will start next week, but I think their intention is to start this sooner rather than later (and certainly not in 5-10 years). That is a far cry from some of the developments you mentioned, where financing was not lined up prior to the project's announcement. Oh yeah, and those projects were headed by local, inexperienced developers - not the people behind Washington Square. Apples and oranges.

[krazeeboi]

If what you're saying is, it would be bad to have a situation where we have something sucessful, and we replace it with something even more successful, I do not follow your logic. In fact, its my whole point. To take something that is a negative, and create something positive which is then replaced by something even more positive, and so one, and so on. Of course, all the while being mindful of architectural preservation.

But we aren't comparing apples and apples here. Qualitatively, the two aren't the same. There are several things that make for a successful urban environment, two of which are mixed-use developments and open spaces. The two have different functions and it would be folly to equate or substitute the success of one with the success of the other. Using your reasoning, one could justify building a bunch of retail and residential atop Falls Park. After all, that would probably add more to the city's tax coffers.

[gvegascple]

Again, financing for this project has already been obtained. That is not the issue here. The project could start tomorrow if the developers wanted to. Their only concern is speculative building given the current economic climate. That's not to say that they will start next week, but I think their intention is to start this sooner rather than later (and certainly not in 5-10 years). That is a far cry from some of the developments you mentioned, where financing was not lined up prior to the project's announcement. Oh yeah, and those projects were headed by local, inexperienced developers - not the people behind Washington Square. Apples and oranges.

They aren't breaking ground because they have no tenants. No retail tenants, no office tenants, and I am somewhat doubtful on the hotel component being solid either. Financing is not the issue, agreed. But still, there is a reason NOT to build, so they are not building. repeat, not building. I will eat my hat if I see an actual building going up there within the next 12 months. Downtown Greenville has currently max'd out its office occupancy, hence the high vacancy rate downtown. If another building was added at this time, it would further dilute the number of open spaces and lower the value of leased space. The next phase of Riverplace is in the same boat. Jamming a bunch of buildings into an area that can't support it will lead to more empty spaces, investors losing money, and more for lease signs. Expansion has to be done smart, not big. If all you care about is an urban skyline even if it destroys the city itself, then sure, maybe its a good idea. If you think "build it, and they will come" is a good idea, ask one of the telecom companies from the 1990's, oh wait, they are all gone now.

Edited April 4, 2009 by gvegascple

[gvegascple]

But we aren't comparing apples and apples here. Qualitatively, the two aren't the same. There are several things that make for a successful urban Using your reasoning, one could justify building a bunch of retail and residential atop Falls Park. After all, that would probably add more to the city's tax coffers.

You are correct. If there was something better than falls park, I would say go for it. I doubt it would ever come along, but the point is, always seek excellence and progress. The theory should work on both small and large scales. Again, it is a bit ridiculous to think of something better than falls park in that location, but if by some freak chance there was, it should be considered. Now back to reality, lets talk about replacing vacant lots instead of Falls park.

[krazeeboi]

You are correct. If there was something better than falls park, I would say go for it. I doubt it would ever come along, but the point is, always seek excellence and progress. The theory should work on both small and large scales. Again, it is a bit ridiculous to think of something better than falls park in that location, but if by some freak chance there was, it should be considered. Now back to reality, lets talk about replacing vacant lots instead of Falls park.

Well this entire thing is hypothetical, which is why I used Falls Park as an example. I know of no city that built over a successful park/plaza (not saying it hasn't happened; I just don't know of any). It simply doesn't make sense, especially since successful open spaces aren't always easy to come by. The only thing I can see Cousins (or whoever) doing, given the long-term plans for the site, would include putting down some turf and planting a few trees (i.e., creating a useless space)--similar to what First Citizens Bank did to a lot it owns across from its headquarters building in downtown Columbia:

Of course, this is until the bank develops the site, or so it says. I forget what was on that lot before this little pocket park though.

[gvegascple]

Well this entire thing is hypothetical, which is why I used Falls Park as an example. I know of no city that built over a successful park/plaza (not saying it hasn't happened; I just don't know of any). It simply doesn't make sense, especially since successful open spaces aren't always easy to come by. The only thing I can see Cousins (or whoever) doing, given the long-term plans for the site, would include putting down some turf and planting a few trees (i.e., creating a useless space)--similar to what First Citizens Bank did to a lot it owns across from its headquarters building in downtown Columbia:

Of course, this is until the bank develops the site, or so it says. I forget what was on that lot before this little pocket park though.

Thanks for the example photo.

In practice, this is sort of what I am saying. That picture shows a developer, a city, anyone, turning empty space planned for future development into something other than a vacant lot, a hole in the ground, or a broken down building. I think in this picture, its just the developer trying to make it aesthetically pleasing probably at the cities request but it is better than nothing. If you google pocket parks, you can tons of much better examples of uses of space like this that can actually add to the downtown experience. The goal shouldnt be to just make it look pretty, but to create a space that both beautifies downtown and creates a space that draws people to it. The cost argument against doing it doesnt work for me either. The city should force developers to do something with the space so as not to make the city worse while we wait for them to build, or, in some cases, sell off (um, the gateway site) land that they are speculating with. Pocket parks can be done very nicely for very little money and can be funded by the city, by the developers, through private donations, fundraisers or by planned events in that space. i

[gs3]

Thanks for the example photo.

In practice, this is sort of what I am saying. That picture shows a developer, a city, anyone, turning empty space planned for future development into something other than a vacant lot.....

The corner of Washington and Main is not a vacant lot as you say. It has a building on it which has not been condemed. Immediately next door to the planned development is already a pocket park.....Piazza Bergamo. Why tear down a building, ruin the canyon effect Main has, to but a temp pocket park next to an already existing pocket park?

[btoy]

plus the awning is pretty useful when it is raining!